MANAGERIAL ROLES ON KNOWLEDGE SHARING …eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/77946/1/SunitaRegaKathiraveluPFM2016.pdf · demonstrate their managerial roles to cultivate knowledge ... ke arah

MANAGERIAL ROLES ON KNOWLEDGE SHARING BEHAVIOUR AMONG

MALAYSIAN CIVIL SERVANTS

SUNITA REGA KATHIRAVELU

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy (Management)

Faculty of Management

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

JANUARY 2016

iii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to:

My amazing son, Trixhan and my beautiful daughter, Karesha.

May this inspire you both to excel in life and reach out the impossible.

My husband, Khanna, thank you for loving me unconditionally and for

always believing in me, even when I cooked meals that the taste reflected my stress

or even when I spent more time with the computer than with you. Without you by my

side, this effort would have been worth nothing.

I love you and I will always will.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to sincerely thank GOD and my guru BABA

who has blessed me with the power of knowledge, understanding, determination,

guidance and most of all patience during my graduate studies.

This research would never have come to fruition without the prayers and

blessings from my supportive parents who had always been strong advocates of

education. They have never once rejected my plea when I needed a babysitter or just

needed a short break from my research. I am indebted to you, pappa and amma.

My immense appreciation and gratitude to two brilliant educators, my

supervisors Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nur Naha Abu Mansor and Prof T. Ramayah, who

willingly accepted me and shared their valuable time, knowledge, wisdom, gave me

an amazing support with continuous encouragement throughout my entire research

journey. I have learnt a great deal from these amazing gurus who were always ready

to answer any doubts no matter how trivial it may seem. Special thanks to the panel

of examiners as I never could have carried on this journey alone without them. I am

also grateful to the Public Service Department for the scholarship given to me that

allowed me to pursue my goal in life.

My appreciation also goes out to my best friend, Sujata who has been a sister

to me, who have constantly supported me, who truly understand my research plight,

who had spent much of her precious time rescuing me and just being there to lift me

up till the completion of this research. No words could express how grateful I am to

have you as my friend.

Finally to my family and friends, all this wouldn’t be possible without each

and every one of you. I wouldn’t have been here today without all your blessings.

From the very bottom of my heart, a big thank you.

v

ABSTRACT

Knowledge management (KM) has become a primary pillar for knowledge

initiatives within the private and public sectors. Although Malaysia is rapidly moving

towards a knowledge-based economy, current research shows that the Malaysian

public sector is not ready to embark on knowledge sharing (KS) initiatives. In this

sector, Administrative and Diplomatic Officers (PTD) play a crucial role in

developing initiatives and implementing national policies aimed towards influencing

knowledge productivity within the country. This study investigates how PTD

demonstrate their managerial roles to cultivate knowledge sharing behaviour (KSB)

within the public sector. Organisational culture (clan and hierarchical cultures) was

also examined as a moderator of the study. A positivist approach was utilized

through the collection of questionnaires from PTD of twenty four ministries in

Putrajaya, Malaysia. Based on purposive sampling, seventeen respondents who

fulfilled the research requirements were chosen from each ministry. Findings

revealed that interpersonal and informational roles have significant relationships

towards cultivating a positive KSB, as one desire to acquire and share knowledge

will be higher in a friendlier, closer and more participative culture. However,

hierarchical cultured organisations with multiple levels of rules and strict approval

stages were found to be insignificant in the establishment of an effective KSB in the

civil service. Based on the findings, there is a need for proper placement of PTD as it

can influence an effective formation of KSB as well as creating a more harmonious

working environment that emphasizes on building trust. This set up will eventually

contribute to the improvement in the delivery of knowledge sharing behaviour.

vi

ABSTRAK

Pengurusan pengetahuan (KM) telah menjadi tunggak utama dalam inisiatif

pengetahuan bagi sektor swasta dan awam. Walaupun Malaysia kini pantas menuju

ke arah ekonomi berasaskan pengetahuan, penyelidikan semasa menunjukkan

bahawa sektor awam di Malaysia masih belum bersedia untuk memulakan inisiatif

perkongsian pengetahuan (KS). Dalam sektor ini, Pegawai Tadbir dan Diplomatik

(PTD) memainkan peranan penting dalam membangunkan inisiatif dan

melaksanakan dasar-dasar negara, bertujuan mempengaruhi ke arah peningkatan

produktiviti pengetahuan dalam negara. Kajian ini mengkaji bagaimana PTD

memainkan peranan pengurusan mereka untuk memupuk tingkahlaku perkongsian

pengetahuan (KSB) di sektor awam. Budaya organisasi (budaya suku dan hierarki)

juga telah dikaji sebagai moderator kajian ini. Pendekatan positivis digunakan

melalui pungutan borang soal selidik daripada PTD di dua puluh empat kementerian

di Putrajaya, Malaysia. Berdasarkan kaedah persampelan bertujuan, tujuh belas

responden yang menepati kriteria kajian telah dipilih daripada setiap kementerian.

Penemuan kajian menunjukkan bahawa peranan interpersonal dan peranan informasi

mempunyai hubungan yang signifikan ke arah memupuk KSB positif. Kewujudan

budaya suku juga didapati memoderatkan secara signifikan hubungan positif peranan

interpersonal dan peranan informasi dengan KSB kerana keinginan seseorang untuk

memperoleh dan berkongsi pengetahuan adalah lebih tinggi dalam persekitaran

budaya yang lebih mesra, lebih rapat dan lebih penyertaan. Walau bagaimanapun,

organisasi berbudaya hierarki dengan pelbagai peraturan dan peringkat kelulusan

yang ketat didapati tidak signifikan dalam pembentukan KSB yang efektif dalam

perkhidmatan awam. Berdasarkan hasil kajian, terdapat keperluan penempatan yang

sesuai untuk PTD kerana ia boleh mempengaruhi pembentukan KSB yang berkesan

serta mewujudkan persekitaran kerja yang lebih harmoni yang menekankan

pembinaan kepercayaan. Persediaan ini, akhirnya akan menyumbang kepada

pembaikan dalam penyampaian tingkahlaku perkongsian pengetahuan.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

ABSTRACT v

ABSTRAK vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES xiii

LIST OF FIGURES xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES xvii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of Study 1

1.2 Research Problem 4

1.3 Research Objectives 12

1.4 Conceptual Framework 12

1.5 Significance of the Study 13

1.6 Scope of the Study 14

1.7 Definition of Terms 15

1.7.1 Managerial Roles 15

1.7.1.1 Interpersonal Roles 15

1.7.1.2 Informational Roles 16

1.7.1.3 Decisional Roles 17

1.7.2 Knowledge Sharing Behaviour 18

1.7.2.1 Knowledge Acquiring 19

1.7.2.2 Knowledge Sharing 20

1.7.3 Organizational Culture 20

1.7.3.1 Clan Culture 21

viii

1.7.3.2 Hierarchical Culture 22

1.8 Organization of Thesis 23

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 25

2.1 Knowledge 25

2.1.1 Knowledge Creation 27

2.1.2 Knowledge Sharing Behaviour 29

2.2 Managerial Roles 39

2.3 Knowledge Sharing Behaviour and Managerial Roles 45

2.4 Organizational Culture as the moderator 47

2.5 Gaps in the Literatures 54

2.6 Chapter Summary 56

3 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

DEVELOPMENT

57

3.1 Theoretical Background 57

3.1.1 Mintzberg's Managerial Roles 63

3.1.2 Competing Value Framework 66

3.1.3 Theory of Reasoned Action 68

3.2 Research Variables and Hypotheses 71

3.2.1 Testing the Relationship between Managerial

Roles and Knowledge Sharing Behaviour

71

3.2.1.1 The Relationship between

Interpersonal Roles with

Knowledge Acquiring and

Knowledge Sharing

72


Informational Roles with

Knowledge Acquiring and

Knowledge Sharing

73


Decisional Roles with Knowledge

Acquiring and Knowledge Sharing

74

ix

3.2.2 Testing the Relationship between Managerial

Roles and Knowledge Sharing Behaviour

moderated by Organisational Culture

75


Interpersonal Roles and Knowledge

Sharing Behaviour moderated by

Clan Culture and Hierarchical

Culture

75


Informational Roles and

Knowledge Sharing Behaviour

moderated by Clan Culture and

Hierarchical Culture

77


Decisional Roles and Knowledge

Sharing Behaviour moderated by

Clan Culture and Hierarchical

Culture

78

3.3 Research Framework 82


4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 84

4.1 Research Philosophies 85

4.1.1 Justification on the Choice of Paradigm 88

4.2 Research Design 89

4.2.1 Correlational Study 89

4.3 Population and Sampling Procedure 90

4.3.1 Research Population 90

4.3.2 Sampling Procedure 92

4.3.2.1 Population size and Sample size 93

4.3.2.2 Sampling Method 94

4.3.2.2.1 Purposive Sampling 94

4.3.2.2.2 Nomination 96

x

4.4 Unit of Analysis 97

4.5 Instrument Development and Measurement 97

4.5.1 Questionnaire Development 98

4.5.1.1 Common Method Variance 99

4.5.1.2 Operationalized of the Construct 101

4.5.1.3 Control Variables 102

4.6 Pre-Test 104

4.6.1 Discussion of the Pre-test Results 104

4.7 Data Collection 105

4.8 Data Analysis 106

4.8.1 Descriptive 106

4.8.2 Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 106

4.8.2.1 Reflective and Formative Construct 107

4.8.2.2 Partial Least Square (PLS) 109

4.8.2.2.1 Measurement Model -

Stage 1

110

Internal Reliability 111

Validity 111

Convergent Validity 112

Discriminant Validity 112

4.8.2.2.2 Structural Model -

Stage 2

113

Determinant of

Coefficient

113

Path Coefficient 114

Effect size 114

Bootstrapping

Procedure

114

4.9 Chapter Summary

115

5 DATA ANALYSIS 116

5.1 Preliminary Analysis 116

5.2 Respondent's Profile 117

xi

5.3 Common Method Variance 119

5.4 Measurement Model Assessment 119

5.5 Descriptive Analysis of the Measurement Model 124

5.5.1

Descriptive Analysis of the Independent

Latent Instrument

124

5.5.2 Descriptive Analysis of the Moderating

Instrument

124

5.5.3 Descriptive Analysis of the Dependent Latent

Variables

125

5.6 Structural Model 125

5.6.1 Coefficient of Determination (R2) 126

5.6.2 Path Coefficients 127

5.6.3 Effect size of the Independent Variables 128

5.7 Moderator Testing 129

5.7.1 CC has moderating effect towards the

relationship between IR and KA

132


relationship between FR and KA

133


relationship between IR and KS

134


relationship between FR and KS

136

5.8 Summary of Moderating Test Results 137

5.9 Summary of the Main Findings 139


6 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 142

6.1 Discussion of the Research Findings 142


7 CONCLUSION 154

7.1 Summary of Research 154

7.2 Theoretical Contributions 159

xii

7.3 Practical Contributions 161

7.4 Future Research Suggestions 165

7.5 Concluding Remarks 166

REFERENCES 169

Appendices A-C 204 -217

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLES NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Knowledge Sharing in Private Sector 36

2.2 Knowledge Sharing in Public Sector 37

3.1 Manager’s Ten Roles by Henry Mintzberg 65

3.2 Summary of Hypotheses 80

4.1 Four Paradigm of Research Philosophy 88

4.2 Total of Scale Items to Measure Each Construct 99

4.3 A Summary of Research Instrumentation Development 103

4.4 A Summary on the Validity Guideline of Measurement

Model

113

4.5 Data Analysis 115

5.1 Respondent's Profile Information 118

5.2 Internal Reliability and Convergent Validity of the

Measurement Model

121

5.3 Discriminant Validity of the Measurement Model 122

5.4 Cross Loading of the Measurement Model 123

5.5 Summary of the Hypotheses Testing (Direct Effect) 127

5.6 Hypotheses Results of the Structural Model (Direct Effect) 128

5.7 Effect Size of the Independent Variables 129

5.8 Summary Results of the Effect Size of the Moderating

Test

130

5.9 Summary Results of the Moderating Test 138

5.10 Summary of the Research Questions and Hypotheses 140

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES NO. TITLE PAGE

1.1 Proposed Conceptual Model 13

2.1 The Four Patterns of Knowledge Creation 28

2.2 Summary of Common Barriers to Knowledge Sharing 31

2.3

2.4

Summary of Different Perspectives on Managerial

Roles

Summary of Outcomes of Managerial Roles

40

43

2.5 Summary of Gaps in the Literatures 56

3.1 Three Levels of Culture According to Schein 61

3.2 Competing Value Framework 68

3.3 Theory of Reasoned Action 70

3.4 The Proposed Research Hypotheses 81

3.5 Proposed Research Framework 83

4.1 The Administrative and Diplomatic Scheme Structure 92

4.2 Identified Characteristics for participants used in

Purposive Sampling

96

4.3 Inner and Outer Model 107

4.4 Reflective and Formative Construct 108

5.1 Measurement Model 120

5.2 Structural Model 126

5.3 Impact of the Clan Culture on the Relationship between

Interpersonal Roles and Knowledge Acquiring

132


Informational Roles and Knowledge Acquiring

134


xv

Interpersonal Roles and Knowledge Sharing 135


Informational Roles and Knowledge Sharing

136

6.1 The Final Research Model 153

xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADO - Administrative and Diplomatic Officer

CC - Clan Culture

CFA - Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CVF - Competing Value Framework

DR - Decisional Roles

EO - Executive Officer

FR - Informational Roles

HC - Hierarchical Culture

IR - Interpersonal Roles

JUSA - Premier Grade in Civil Service

KA

KS

-

-

Knowledge Acquiring

Knowledge Sharing

KSB - Knowledge Sharing Behaviour

MHFS - Malaysian Home and Foreign Services

OCAI - Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument

PLS - Partial Least Square

PTD - Pegawai Tadbir dan Diplomatik

SEM - Structural Equation Modelling

TPB - Theory of Planned Behaviour

TRA - Theory of Reasoned Action

xvii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Frequency Tables 204

B Permission to Conduct Doctorate

Research Survey in the Ministry 208

C Survey Questionnaire 210

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

The specific components that are discussed by the researcher in this chapter

include background to the research, the research problem, the research questions, the

research objectives and the conceptual framework that guides this research.

1.1 Background of the Study

In today’s era, society is very much driven by an abundance of information.

Knowledge is considered the driver for economic growth and shall continue to be so

for many years to come (Sandhu et al., 2011). Knowledge and skills are the critical

for efficient and effective execution of internal and external organisational ventures

and are becoming a major factor in creating a competitive business advantage

(Mukherjee, 2011; Shaari, 2004). Knowledge is an important intellectual asset and it

allows organisational members to generate new ideas, acquire valuable information

and promote continuous learning (Wu, 2013; Yaakub et al., 2013). Therefore, the

organisation will be more productive if it continuously facilitates knowledge sharing

(KS) and taking it as an agenda among its organisation members (Senge, 1990).

2

Organisations currently place great emphasis on managing their knowledge

assets. This creates a promising role in providing an effective way to gain

organisational strategic advantage. Sharing knowledge throughout an organisation

has intuitive appeal (Marks et al., 2008) and has become a good social practice

(Manaf and Marzuki, 2014). Among many processes of knowledge management

(KM) cycle, KS is acknowledged as the most important asset in today’s knowledge-

based era and plays a key role in the whole process (Wu, 2013; Yaakub et al., 2013;

Foss et al., 2010).

Punia (2013) pointed out that for successful KM, there is definitely a need to

promote the visibility of KM activities, particularly by encouraging the development

of knowledge sharing behaviour (KSB). Therefore, to establish positive KSB it

requires not only knowledge from the bringing party but also of the obtaining party

(Mustafa et al., 2013), as when knowledge is retrieved from others who holds it and

shared with other who needs it, organisational effectiveness will improve

(Karkoulian and Mahseredjian, 2012).

Malaysia is a country moving towards a knowledge based economy and the

Government of Malaysia has progressively taken various steps and initiatives to

provide a climate conducive to knowledge production activities (Masrek et al.,

2013). In order to compete and achieve the status of being a developed country, the

Malaysian public sector employees with 1.4 million workforces (Kassim and

Mokhber, 2015) plays a crucial role towards achieving a knowledge based-economy.

To achieve Malaysia’s vision into becoming a developed nation by 2020, emphasis

on KS activities certainly need to be further explored (Tangaraja et al., 2015).

Realizing its importance, the K-Economy Master Plan was launched in 2002 to

accelerate the transformation towards an intellectual capital and making it the

government’s national agenda (Mustapha and Abdullah, 2004).

3

It is undeniable that knowledge sharing itself can generate many benefits to

an organisation, however it is not a self-generated process (Wu, 2013). A main

factor that can be highly influential in successful knowledge sharing is the skill of the

people who are under its management, most particularly the expertise possessed by

managers. Organisations consider managers with competitive skills-sets as

mechanisms for success (McCrimmon, 2010; Birkinshaw, 2010; Lee et al., 2007;

Magretta, 2003).

The demands of carrying out the varied roles of a manager are unparalleled,

as they must act as leaders, think in a strategic perspective and execute plans

flawlessly. These functions call for a serious set of skills and competencies in order

for the value of managers as a critical asset to an organisation to be fully grasped,

even by managers themselves (Augier and Teece, 2009; Fernandez and Rainey,

2006). So if positive KSB can be exercised in the Malaysian public sector,

employees will be able to receive accurate information quickly, be better informed as

well as make timely decisions, therefore contributing towards becoming a more

competent work force.

However, in reality employees in public sector do not share knowledge

voluntarily as the silo mentality is still much dominant, obstructing the creation of

synergy. Voluntary knowledge sharing is not rampant in the public sector as it has

not become a part of their daily job. As managers in the Malaysian public sector have

different pattern of sharing at different levels, information, work culture and attitudes

of managers in different Ministries could vary, therefore contributing to the

challenges of establishing a positive KSB. As such, the possible connection and

relationship between KSB and the importance of managerial roles is the underlying

motivation for conducting a comprehensive investigation on how managers can

effectively utilize their managerial roles to cultivate a positive knowledge sharing

culture in the Malaysian public sector.

4

1.2 Research Problem

Knowledge is central to growth. Without a knowledge base, sustained

economic activity is impossible. Many organisations moving toward a knowledge-

based economy has considered it as the most important asset (Wu, 2013). KS, has

become the primary pillar for KM initiatives, as the practices for sharing information

plays a vital role in the whole process of KM. KSB which focuses on the ways and

means of knowledge acquisition (KA) and knowledge sharing to others, emphasising

that knowledge must be first acquired by managers and employees if they are to

subsequently share it, does not occur naturally as it is a people-to-people process

(Ryu et al., 2003). This makes it one of the most difficult processes within KM

(Alajmi, 2008). KSBs have been widely studied in the past by various researchers

from around the world (Yaakub et al., 2013; Moshari, 2013; Abzari and Teimouri,

2008; Polanyi, 1966). However the importance of the subject matter, what was being

shared, has always been the primary focus of those researches, not the means of

acquisition and transfer (Boateng et al., 2014; Wu, 2013; Karkoulian and

Mahseredjian, 2012; Hitam and Mohamad, 2012; Carmeli et al., 2011; King, 2009;

Bonner, 2002; Denning, 2001; Linde, 2001).

Although various empirical evidence has pointed out that KS contributes as a

more comprehensive suite of behaviours, values, technical mechanisms, and

processes to positive KSB and improvement in organisational performance (Dawes,

Gharawi and Burke, 2012; Yang and Maxwell, 2011; Wang and Noe, 2010) many

researchers in this field focused solely on the private sector (Yusof et al., 2012; Pee

and Kankahalli, 2008; Syed Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004). Empirical evidence has

proven that people are more motivated to engage in KSB activities in profit-based

organisations compared to service-based organisations (Seba et al., 2012a). The

main reason for this phenomenon is that the private sector and public sector have

different drivers and goals for KS. In addition, civil servants are not strongly profit-

motivated, as employees are more devoted in serving their community and the

general public (Seba et al., 2012b). Unlike the public sector, in the private sector

cooperation in sharing and enhancing KS practice in their daily operations are

5

essential, as failure to do so will lead to unsuccessful outcomes (Hitam and

Mohamad, 2012). Although there are significant differences in the objectives of both

sectors, the importance of developing an effective KSB in the public sector is

undeniably important as they play a pivotal role in performance improvement, thus

resulting in customer and employee satisfaction. Understanding how civil servant

throughout their career cycle acquire knowledge and then share it to others via

positive KSB is particularly needed if the wider process of KM is to be better known.

Without a doubt, Malaysia is a country moving toward a knowledge-based

economy. The Malaysian aspiration in achieving Vision 2020 has urged the

government to establish a number of strategies, including introducing the concept of

enhancing knowledge capabilities (Manaf and Marzuki, 2014). In order to

materialise its K-economy Master Plan, knowledge should become a key factor of

economic production and the knowledge economy policies. These were outlined to

support the country’s vision in promoting the national development-knowledge link

(Masrek et al., 2013; Yusof et al., 2012) and should be taken seriously.

Consequently, the country should be equipped with first class human capital (Manaf

and Marzuki, 2014) and thus able to compete among other nations in this globalised

world (Yusof et al., 2012). Many scholars argued that, given current global demand,

government organisations can no longer keep doing things traditionally; instead they

are encouraged to do the right things well rather than doing things right (Manaf and

Marzuki, 2014).

Syed Omar and Rowland (2007) found that organisations in Malaysia have

yet to manage their basis of knowledge in order to be a knowledge-based society. In

the study of Yusof et al., (2012), the authors stressed that the public sector in

Malaysia is not yet ready to extensively embark on KS initiatives. Therefore, the

crucial responsibility to promote and foster knowledge productivity in both the

individual and corporate levels lies in the hands of policy makers (Yusof et al., 2012;

Norwawi, 2010). These pressures imposed on civil servants who carry the brunt of

the labour for developing and executing governmental policies and pose immense

interest for the researcher in examining how managerial roles, organisational culture

6

and knowledge sharing behaviour occurs within the public sector. Although there

are extensive reviews of theoretical and empirical literatures distinctively, there are

still some areas that lack empirical explanation, especially on public sector managers

in the KM field (Yusof et al., 2012). Therefore, the present study intends to fill these

gaps and contribute to the scholarship in these areas.

The first issue concerns KSB in the Malaysian public service, which has yet

to receive much attention (Sandhu et al., 2011; Reshman, Withers and Hartley,

2009). Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland (2004) study discovered a surprising result that

indicated that those who have been working in the Ministry for over 10 years showed

signs of low knowledge on their Ministry’s KM strategy, with a majority of 51.7%

indicating that it is not their responsibility to participate in KM. These employees

feel that knowledge in the Ministry is only available through the ministry’s policies

and procedures, job manual procedures, job manual, ISO 9002, desk files and their

available database (Manaf and Marzuki, 2014). Kalsom and Syed Noh (2005) also

claimed that, although there are government agencies that claim to be practising KS,

they are essentially based on traditional methods of communicating information:

face-to-face meetings, bulletins and notice boards. This phenomenon indicates that

organisation-wide adoption of KS in the public sector is not as widespread as in the

private sector. The successful establishment of knowledge initiated programs not

only depends on management support but also on the ability of individuals to acquire

and share their knowledge (Aljanabi and Kumar, 2012). Additionally, this approach

in creating positive KSB ignores KA, instead uncritically treating KS only in

technical terms and procedures associated with KM.

Similarly, another interesting study conducted by Sandhu et al., (2011),

concluded that the 170 employees interviewed and working in the public sectors of

Malaysia had limited knowledge about the implementation of KS within their

workplace. Although these employees claimed they knew the importance of KS,

50% of the employees felt that this issue had not been communicated well to them.

This fact negatively affected their willingness to share knowledge (Seba et al.,

2012a). Ironically, most employees in the ministry assumed that it is the

7

responsibility of the management and departmental heads to initiate KS activities

(Sandhu et al., 2011). Although the government have continuously expressed its

concern over the need to develop KS initiatives, this clearly indicates that there are

issues with the disseminating of information about their current KM strategy within

the Malaysian public sector (Manaf and Marzuki, 2014). Following on from these

claims, it can be concluded that organisations in the public sector have not been

effectively practising KS and it is extremely important to understand that there can

be no KS without a proper KM strategy (Yusof et al., 2012).

Furthermore, empirical evidence has stated that to create a positive KSB,

there should be two equally important components: knowledge acquisition and

knowledge sharing (Ramachandran et al., 2013; Karkoulian et al., 2012; Mueller,

2012; Gupta, 2008; Ryu et al., 2003; Lee and Choi, 2003;). As illustrated above,

studies incorporating these two dimensions are rare. Therefore, these two concepts

are still very novel in the literature of KSB. Public organisations often deal with

retirement and staff relocation within departments. To ensure knowledge stays within

the organisation, it is extremely vital to capture and share knowledge among

employees (Amayah, 2013; Olatokun and Nwafor, 2012) as knowledge is often

required and shared during work (Szabo and Csepregi, 2015). If how knowledge is

shared as a form of passing information forward, there remains a dearth of

knowledge and attention on how the knowledge worth sharing was acquired in the

first place. This dialectic relationship between acquisition and sharing inherent to

KSB is clearly a gap that this study aims to address.

Although KM is no longer a novel concept among scholars in this field, the

scarcity of it in the public sector, especially in developing countries like Malaysia,

needs utmost attention (Salleh and Syed Ahmad, 2006). In addition, all these

findings indicate that KM theories and frameworks that are being applied in the

public sector are clearly not yet well understood (Riege and Lindsay, 2006). As

supported by the claims stated earlier, the public sector of Malaysia has issues with

inculcating proper management theories and KS initiatives. Therefore, the

managerial role (MR) has to be more apparent within the public sectors of Malaysia.

8

After all, if such initiatives had been properly disseminated to the employees, then

the employees should have been able to relate to KM in their organisation.

The second issue that triggers the researcher to explore this topic further is

that public service managers, as empirical findings have shown, frequently view KS

as an additional and supplementary procedure only and not as a crucial requisite

(Seba et al., 2012a). KS is a human activity and understanding the humans who will

do it is the first step to the success of such systems (Ryu et al., 2003). Several

studies in the past have identified leadership or MR as an important factor to

successful KS (Seba et al., 2012b) and developing such behaviour. According to

Moshari (2013), for successful KM implementation, visible leadership and

commitment from management must be sustained throughout a KM effort.

Although it is crucial to understand the importance for MR in the context

developing KS behaviour, managers around the world are still struggling to redefine

their classic roles of managers espoused by Mintzberg, which is based on the US

context (Pearson and Chatterjee, 2003). These are the essential MR and have been

assumed to be the common and basic function of managers in any and all

organisations (Schermerhorn, 2011). According to Ramezani et al. (2011), most

managers perform all the roles described by Mintzberg to some degree and are

similar in term of value and importance, however the way they perform their roles

varies significantly in differing situations.

In Malaysia, the Administrative and Diplomatic (PTD) officers are the

managers that have the responsibility for developing initiatives and implementing

national policies that are aimed towards influencing knowledge productivity within

the country (Masrek et al., 2013; Kumar and Rose, 2010). These officers serve as

the facilitators of the nations’ economic growth, enforcers of law, protectors of peace

and integration, and guardians of the future generation’s wellbeing. Yusof et al.,

(2012), in their recent investigation of PTD officers, have concluded that to date not

much is known about whether these officers have been able to demonstrate a

dynamic productivity and expertise towards a knowledge economy aspiration. On

9

top of this, little is known about how Malaysian managers in the civil service

contribute to KS (Sandhu et al., 2011; Reshman et al., 2009). This statement is

indeed alarming, given the fact that these public sector managers play primary roles

in implementing public policies and carrying out critical responsibilities on behalf of

the government. Despite that, if these MR are neglected, this could contribute to poor

KS in the public sector, therefore causing serious damage to the organisations’

overall performance (Gaal et al., 2012).

At present, there is seemingly only one related study on Mintzberg's MR

conducted in the Malaysian public enterprise since 1987. Despite Zabid’s (1987)

suggestion that there is a need to further conduct an in-depth study of managers in

the public and private sector of Malaysia, no researcher has taken up the challenge to

do so. Previous scholars in this area have often focused only on corporate and

academic settings (Kraut et al., 2005; Pearson and Chatterjee, 2003; Gottchalk,

2002). Therefore, there is a great need for empirical research that can serve as a

basis for understanding how managers in the public sector of Malaysia demonstrate

Mintzberg’s MR to influence KSB in their organisation. This is another gap the

researcher intends to fill in this study.

The third issue that could contribute to more positive KSBs among public

service employees is the organisational culture (OC) itself. The OC is considered to

be another issue that needs to be addressed, as this is a factor that has been apparent

among all successful organisations across the globe from the time it was first

identified as a key concept in the early 1980s. All successful companies that can be

identified today were built up using an identifiable OC. The increasing importance

of a knowledge-based company opens another essential dimension to create an

environment for KS and a culture of productivity to exist (De Long and Fahey,

2000). However, in recent years, several researchers have neglected the importance

of cultural factors in KS activities (Fathi et al., 2011).

Government agencies are typically bureaucratic and hierarchical

organisations that make sharing knowledge difficult, as people tend to keep

10

knowledge private as they move up the ranks (Liebowitz and Chen, 2003). Public

service employees working under a bureaucratic culture tend to see KM as a

management responsibility and not something that employees need to participate in

(Seba et al., 2012a). In the Malaysian public sector setting, managers are often faced

with issues of stilted information flow due to the bureaucratic culture of the

organisation (Kumar and Rose, 2012; Yusof, 2005). As such, communication from

higher hierarchy levels (top management) to lower hierarchy levels

(employees/subordinates) can be difficult to implement, thus in the end hindering the

establishment of effective KSB. Besides this, most organisational members consider

knowledge as something proprietary, a valuable asset, a source of power and

something that is not to be shared freely (Ramachandran et al., 2011; Ismail and

Yusof, 2010).

A further significant observation that was also noted is that there isn’t

sufficient support towards establishing a KS culture within the Malaysian public

sector, which is lacking of formal and informal activities to instil such positive

behaviour (Sandhu et al., 2011, p.217). As reviews of past literatures have revealed,

OC is deemed to be essential in the formation of KSB, as it presents a major

influence to the effectiveness of KM (Momeni et al., 2013; Adenan et al., 2013;

Ramayah et al., 2013; Jacobs and Roodt, 2011; Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Shaari, 2004).

It is definitely a component which deserves equal attention in this study. Nold (2011)

concluded in his research that without an OC that encourages information and KSB,

the most sophisticated KM systems will fail to generate expected results for

organisations.

In this study, the researcher intends to investigate the possibility of whether

or not OC in the public sector of Malaysia would have any effect on KSB, as

empirical evidence has proven elsewhere that OC can either promote or hinder the

success of KM initiatives (Tseng, 2010). Furthermore, a recent study by Cavaliera

and Lombardi (2015), confirmed that empirical application of OC model, especially

on the Competing Value Framework in investigating KSB is still lacking and needs

to be further explored. Therefore, this study investigates the possible significant

11

moderating effect of OC within the context of the relationship between MR and KSB

in the Malaysian public sector.

In summary, although there have been steady calls for better understanding of

the elements that silhouette KSB in public sector organisations (Kumar and Rose,

2012), minimal effort has been taken to investigate how managers in the public

sector of Malaysia demonstrate their MR to influence KSB, especially in terms of

KA and KS. To date, no single study on Mintzberg’s MR has been conducted in

relation to the Administrative and Diplomatic (PTD) officers of Malaysia. Despite

the considerable abundance of KM literature, no existing studies have thoroughly

investigated the relationship between KSB and Mintzberg MR, and how these

officers influence KSB in the public sector of Malaysia, is still an untapped area. In

addition, the moderating role of OC within the MR and KSB is also tested.

Therefore, this study is intended to contribute significant insight by covering

the loopholes in previous studies in this field, especially in Malaysia, since most

studies that have been conducted in the past were focused on the private sector.

Hence, this research generates a positive contribution to the body of knowledge, both

theoretically and practically. Therefore, this study seeks to address three (3) primary

research questions:

(i) RQ1: What is the level of knowledge sharing behaviour in the public sector

of Malaysia?

(ii) RQ2: What is the relationship between managerial roles and knowledge

sharing behaviour in the public sector of Malaysia?

(iii) RQ3: Does organisational culture moderate the relationship between

managerial roles and knowledge sharing behaviour?

12

1.3 Research Objectives

This study seeks to address these three (3) main research objectives as below;

(i) RO1: To measure the level of knowledge sharing behaviour in the public

sector of Malaysia.

(ii) RO2: To examine the relationship between managerial roles and knowledge

sharing behaviour in the public sector of Malaysia.

(iii) RO3: To determine if organisational culture moderates the relationship

between managerial roles and knowledge sharing behaviour.

1.4 Conceptual Framework

Based on the model in Figure 1.1, it can be seen that the initial variables of

the study are derived from the model, framework and theory chosen to guide this

research.

The three MR serve as a conceptual basis for the study were derived from the

Mintzberg model, highlighting that these are the essential roles that are commonly

used by most managers in their daily operations. Furthermore, the second

component of the conceptual model is OC, which is based on the Competing Value

Framework (CVF). This framework best describes the types of culture in an

organisation and is suitable to use to explain the most appropriate culture that

represents the public sector. Lastly, KSB, which is based on the Theory of Reasoned

Action (TRA), guides the components of knowledge acquiring and knowledge

sharing of the respondents in this study. TRA best describes these components, as

the theory assumes that social behaviour is deeply motivated by an individual’s

attitude towards executing a specific behaviour (Ramayah and Jantan, 2004).

13

In the conceptual framework of this study, it is important to note that the

independent variable is the MR, the dependent variable is the KSB, and the

moderator is the OC. Figure 1.1 shows a visualization of the conceptual framework

that guides the study.

Figure 1.1: Proposed Conceptual Model

1.5 Significance of the Study

The completion of this research will be of great significance as

supplementary evidence in the KM literature. This particular research has three main

contributions. First and foremost, this study contributes to existing empirical

research and can serve as a basis for further development of policy on KSB. It does

so by incorporating both equally substantial dimensions of KSB (KA and KS),

mainly in the public sector and specifically on the PTD officers. KSB is a behaviour

of disseminating acquired knowledge, therefore both KA and KS are significant in

contributing towards a positive KSB. A defined new construct of KSB is proposed

and such empirical implication will foster the academic contribution in terms of new

14

knowledge to the existing literature in the KM field of the public sector, not just in

Malaysia, but also in other parts of the world.

Secondly, in terms of theoretical contribution, this study explores views on

the influence of OC, specifically looking into the CVF model and focusing only on

clan culture (CC) and hierarchical culture (HC), the closest to the culture represented

in the public sector of Malaysia. Integrating this model with Mintzberg’s MR to

investigate KSB establishes a novel interrelationship between these three areas, as

one’s behaviour towards KS is greatly influenced by his or her internal and external

environment.

Finally, this study will significantly contribute in the practical context of

understanding public sector managers and in particularly to the (PTD) scheme. With

the minimal number of studies in this area, this study will indeed be an eye opener

that will promote a more comprehensive knowledge of how it will be possible to

establish a KS culture and to identify the best managerial roles to cultivate such

behaviour. To be more specific, this study significantly contributes to the Public

Service Department (PSD) of Malaysia as a whole, which will gain practical

knowledge and insights in developing effective policy and also act as a guide in the

placement of the right officer who will appropriately suit the right culture in

establishing positive KSB in the organisation.

Additionally, this research is also be significant for others who have an

interest in the topic, although not necessarily belonging to the public sector. The

research will also be significant in the provision of knowledge to people in the

academic field who are interested in the researcher’s field of research.

1.6 Scope of the Study

While past studies on KS have focused more on the private sector, this study

is focused on the public sector of Malaysia and emphasises the acquisition and

15

sharing nature of KSB as part of the wider concept of KM. The population of this

study consists of the PTD officers, also known as Pegawai Tadbir dan Diplomatik.

Officers between Grade M41-M54, who represent the middle level managers in the

Malaysian public sector, are the respondents who assist in achieving the research

objectives of this study. These specific group of PTDs are chosen as they fit the

definition of middle managers who occupies positions which are two level below the

head of the organisation and one level above supervisory staff (Al-Hakim and

Hassan, 2011). They work in various ministries in Putrajaya and also in other public

service departments throughout the country. A non-probability sampling technique

(more specifically purposive sampling) was used and the respondents were

nominated by their respective Human Resource Departments (HOD), based on the

criteria set by the researcher. The criteria places great emphasis on respondents’

commitment and suitability to aid this research.

1.7 Definition of Terms

The following are the relevant terms that were used in this research:

1.7.1 Managerial Roles

Managerial roles refer to the set of roles that define what managers are

expected to do (Mintzberg, 2004). These can be classified based on the following:

1.7.1.1 Interpersonal Roles (IR)

The conceptual definition and operational definition of the IR are explained

in detail below.

16

Conceptual Definition

IR are defined as manager’s duties, which they repeatedly do on a daily basis

and that evolve from the position’s authority and responsibilities (Gabarro, 1992).

This role is developed to maintain a good working relationship with colleagues and

subordinates (Chatterjee and Pearson, 2002).

Operational Definition

In this research, a middle manager in fulfilling his or her IR, must assume the

following roles: to act as a figurehead, leader and liaison. The figurehead role

involves the fulfilment of various inspirational, ceremonial, legal and social duties.

This simply means that managers are expected to always be on-hand for people. The

manager also assumes the leadership role within the organisation, which involves

mainly maintaining their authority and leading their subordinates. Finally, under the

interpersonal role, the manager must act as a liaison, focusing on communication and

acting as an information centre of the organisation.

1.7.1.2 Informational roles (FR)

The conceptual definition and operational definition of the FR are explained

in detail below;


Receiving information and the act of transmitting the knowledge within and

outside of the organisation are defined as FR. The manager is in charge of seeking,

receiving and acquiring work related information from various sources to ensure

information is disseminated to improve the organisation’s performance (Mintzberg,

2004; Chatterjee and Pearson, 2002).

17


FR of the middle managers in this study pertain to the following information-

related roles: as a monitor, a disseminator and a spokesman. As a monitor, the

manager perpetually scans the environment for information, interrogates liaison

contacts, and receives unsolicited information from various sources. As a

disseminator, the manager is in charge of facilitating the information flow within the

organisation, while ensuring that all the relevant stakeholders are able to acquire the

right information. The manager must assume the role of a spokesman, which means

that the manager must inform or must keep the stakeholders and key influencers of

the organisation informed of any important information in the environment that could

affect the organisation at all times.

1.7.1.3 Decisional Roles

The conceptual definition and operational definition of the DR are explained

in detail below.


The DR of a manager involves making important decisions on behalf of the

organisation, as it clearly defines the manager’s authority and power. It involves a

manager making significant decisions that affect the organisation (Chatterjee and

Pearson, 2002).


The DR of the middle managers in this research basically involves fulfilling the

following relevant managerial roles, which include: as an initiator/changer, a

disturbance handler, as resource allocator and as a negotiator. As an initiator or

changer, the manager leads the strategy making process of the organisation and

18

generates critical decisions. As a disturbance handler, on the other hand, the

manager fulfils the role of taking charge over the organisation, especially when

certain disturbances or issues occur, while ensuring that everything is being dealt

with in a calm and appropriate manner. As the resource allocator, the manager

oversees the resource allocation process of the organisation and have authorization of

the actions. Finally, on behalf of the organisation, the manager is in control of the

most important negotiating processes as the negotiator of the organisation.

1.7.2 Knowledge Sharing Behaviour

KSB is a set of individual behaviours that involves first acquiring and then

sharing one’s expertise and work-related knowledge (Yi, 2009). It is a behaviour

used to disseminate and share the acquired valuable knowledge among members of

the organisation (Ryu et al., 2003; Ipe, 2003; Lee and Choi, 2003). If knowledge

resides in an individual, and they are able to capture it well then only effective KS

can be executed, contributing to a successful KSB. Jayasingam et al., (2010)

revealed that by acquiring knowledge, people tend to share knowledge to a greater

degree.

It is not an easy task to develop this kind of behaviour, because such

behaviour can only possibly take place if an organisation’s members believe that

sharing knowledge is valuable and important (Ryu et al., 2003). KA and KS are two

equally important elements in the establishment of positive KSB of an individual.

This study focuses on KSB of individuals because the behaviour of organisational

members is what management wants to evaluate and measure in their yearly

performance review.

19

1.7.2.1 Knowledge Acquiring

The conceptual definition and operational definition of KA is explained in detail

below.


In his study, Gupta (2008) describes KA as collecting knowledge or capturing

information from various sources. KA is a process of bunching up information

through the application of different methods from external sources and embedding it

within one’s existing knowledge (Boateng et al., 2014). The knowledge that will be

obtained will be used for the purpose of leading the organisation towards success.


The middle managers referred to in this research can capture knowledge from

various sources within an organisation, including books, journals, databases, reports,

expert opinion and also through training programs. Generating new knowledge

through experiments with new ways of working, discussion with senior managers

and colleagues is also included in KA. The development of quality and original

ideas can also be derived through employees’ work experience and individual skills,

as knowledge resides in people. Thus, in creating a solid base of KA within an

organisation, employees need to commit to understanding and willingly capturing

this knowledge, in order to ensure that knowledge is acquired and sustained

successfully for the benefit of the individual and also the organisation. Failure to

acquire knowledge can cause organizations to be unable to sustain and hold up in a

competitive and dynamic industry.

20

1.7.2.2 Knowledge Sharing

The conceptual definition and operational definition of KS is explained in detail

below.


KS is an organisational activity wherein knowledge through the form of

skills, information, data and expertise, is exchanged among stakeholders and

organisational members. It is a kind of behaviour that governs the human exchange

of information, or in general, knowledge (Aulawi et al., 2009). It is also defined as

sharing task-related expertise, ideas and suggestions with others (Gupta, 2008).


KS is a process where an employee imparts his or her knowledge, expertise

and insight to other employees within an organisation. A sharing behaviour can also

refer to what extent an individual is interested in willingly welcoming other people to

have access to their experiences. In this research, KS refers to attempts and

contributions of middle managers towards creating an organisation knowledge

database to ensure that employees of the public sector are better equipped with the

right knowledge to serve the public and to ensure that knowledge stays within the

organisation even as people leave or retire from the service.

1.7.3 Organisational Culture

This is often a reflection of the typical characteristics that can be seen within

an organisation, which, collectively, could define the kind of culture that is present

within that environment. It is also a reflection of the management’s beliefs about the

right approaches to getting things done, as well as the right initiatives to provide a

21

solution to a problem. OC is important in having a collective understanding as it

formulates strategic actions and initiatives to influence organisational success

(Shahzad et al., (2012). In public sector, KS involves sharing some degree of

governmental confidentiality and this necessitates the presence of trust culture, which

resembles the clan culture (Kumar and Rose, 2012). Similarly according to the same

authors, public service employees also face issues with stilted information flow

resulting from its bureaucratic nature. Therefore for this study, the focus is on clan

and hierarchical culture as these are the cultures which are closest to represent the

Malaysian public sector.

1.7.3.1 Clan Culture

The conceptual definition and operational definition of acquiring a CC is

explained in detail below.


CC refers to a type of culture wherein the behaviours of organisational

members are shaped and defined by their individual loyalty and commitment, as well

as the accepted norms and traditions of the organisation. It emphasises flexibility and

internal focus (Ramachandran et al., 2011). This entails the long tenure and service

of employees who later on get promoted and act as mentors for new employees that

occupy positions the managers or mentors once occupied (Papa, 2008).


In this study, organisations with a clan structure are often related to a more

flexible structure of management will lesser control on strict rules and procedures.

Organisational members are driven through vision, shared goals, outputs and

outcomes and people work more as a team. In the public sector, smaller departments

and units often adhere to this type of culture. Clan cultured organisation are driven

22

by loyalty and that creates a sense of family atmosphere which forms a strong bond.

Leaders facilitates and are more supportive although rules still exist but they are

often communicated and inculcated clearly among organisational members. If this

kind of culture is present, the organisation is deemed to be a very friendly work

environment, bounded by commitment, loyalty, and tradition, with people treating

each other like family.

1.7.3.2 Hierarchical Culture

The conceptual definition and operational definition of HC is explained in

detail below.


HC is a type of culture that focuses on social ranking and the levels of positions

within an organisation (Tseng, 2010). The traditional approach of the HC is similar

to Max Weber's original view of bureaucracy with a more controlled structure that

flows from a strict chain of command, whereby subordinates follow orders given by

their superiors empowered by rational-legal authority.


In an organisation with a HC, the focus is more on respect for position and

power. Organisations with this structure have well-defined policies, processes and

procedures. Leaders in this type of culture typically keep a close eye and control on

what is happening within and outside the organisation. Most central agencies have

the following common characteristics of a hierarchical culture: routinisation,

stability, information management, control, and centralisation.

23

1.8 Organisation of the Thesis

The current chapter introduces the context of this research, covering issues

such as the research background, the research problems, the objectives and

significance, in order to give an overview idea of this study. To explain the further

insights of this research, the remaining sections are as follows:

Chapter 2: Literature Review – in this chapter, the discussions is directed towards

an identification of what is already known about the topic. A thorough review of

available references is conducted and presented to provide insights on what has

already been written and studied, in connection to the focus of the study.

Chapter 3: Theoretical Background and Hypothesis – this section further

discusses the theories that guides this study, which contributed to the formulation of

the research hypotheses. Basically, the theories related with or about MR, KSB and

OC is explored with the aid of literature to support this study.

Chapter 4: Research Methodology – this section provides detailed discussions of

the methodology that was used in the process of collecting and analysing information

that enables the research questions to be answered and the research objectives to be

achieved. This provides a clear enumeration of the procedures for completing the

research to assist in its replication in the future, and to validate and elaborate the

findings.

Chapter 5: Data Analysis – this constitutes the major component of the research.

This chapter provides the key insights and findings of the data collection through

statistical analysis. The findings in this section are useful for potential users of the

study because it outlines the results and outcomes of the investigation through

quantitative analysis.

24

Chapter 6: Discussion of Results – this session provides summary of the hypothesis

from the statistical analysis. It reports the research findings and its consistency or

inconsistency from various literatures relevant to the research.

Chapter 7: Conclusion – this chapter is intended to provide a summary of the

discussions that were presented in the earlier chapters. It encapsulates the themes

emerged from the study and provides recommendations regarding future studies, as

well as its limitations that were encountered throughout this research.

REFERENCES

Abzari, M., and Teimouri, H. (2008). The effective factors on knowledge sharing in

organizations. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture, and Change

Management, 8(2), 105-114.

Adenan, H., Hashim, D. M., Jamaludin, A., and Sa’ari, H. (2013, February). The

Influence of the Organizational Culture on Academic Entrepreneur’s

Knowledge Sharing Behaviour: Case Study at Private University Colleges in

Malaysia. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovation and

Entrepreneurship: ICIE 2013 (p. 145). Academic Conferences Limited.

Aghajani, H., Yahyazadehfar, M., and Hosseinzadeh, S.A. (2011). Knowledge

creation processes: A survey of SMEs in the Iranian province of Mazandaran.

Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 1(1), 59-71.

Ahmad, H., and Gelaidan, H. M. (2011). Organisational Culture, Leadership Styles

and Employee’s Affective Commitment to Change: A Case of Yemen Public

Sector. Journal of Organizational Management Studies, 2, 1-10.

Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An

introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social

behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational behaviour and

human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Akdemir, B., Erdem, O., and Polat, S. (2010). Characteristics of high performing

organizations. The Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative

Sciences, 15(1), 155-174.

Aktas, Cicek, and Kiyak (2011). The Effect of Organizational Culture on

Organizational Efficiency: The Moderating Role of Organizational

170

153

15

3

Environment and CEO Values. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences

Journal. 24(1), 1560- 1573.

Alajmi, B. (2008). The intention to share knowledge: Psychological investigation of

knowledge sharing behaviour in online communities. Journal of Information

and Knowledge Management, 11(3), 1-12.

Al-Alawi, A.I., Al-Marzooqi, N.Y., and Mohammed, Y.F. (2007). Organizational

culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 11(2), 22-42.

Alas, R., and Vadi, M. (2006). The impact of organizational culture on

organizational learning and attitudes concerning change from an institutional

perspective. International Journal of strategic change management, 1(1/2),

155-170.

Al-Hakim, L. A. Y., and Hassan, S. (2011). The role of middle managers in

knowledge management implementation for innovation enhancement.

International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 2(1), 86-94.

Alharbi, S. T. (2012). Users’ acceptance of cloud computing in Saudi Arabia: an

extension of technology acceptance model. International Journal of Cloud

Applications and Computing (IJCAC), 2(2), 1-11.

Aliakbar, E., Yusoff, R.B. and Mahmood, N.H.N. (2012). Determinants of

Knowledge Sharing Behaviour. IPEDR, 29 (2012), 208-215.

Aljanabi, A., and Kumar, D. (2012). Knowledge sharing and its impact on innovation

performance: A case study of teaching quality assurance program. Research

Journal of Commerce and Behavioural Science (RJCBS), 2(2), 14-23.

Alonderiene, R. (2010). Enhancing informal learning to improve job satisfaction:

Perspectives of SMEs managers in Lithuania. Baltic Journal of Management,

5(2), 257-287.

Alreck, P. L., and Settle, R. B. (1995). The Survey Research Handbook Guidelines

and Strategies for Conducting a Survey (2nd ed.). USA: McGraw Hill.

Amayah, A T, (2013). Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector

organization. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 454-471.

171

153

15

3

Amin, H. (2013). Factors influencing Malaysian bank customers to choose Islamic

credit cards. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 4(3), 245-263.

Angeline, T. (2010). Managing generational diversity at the workplace: expectations

and perceptions of different generations of employees. African Journal of

Business Management, 5(2), 249-255.

Aquino, K., and Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behaviour in

organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive

modelling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behaviour and Human

Decision Processes, 90(1), 195-208.

Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., T., Wenting, and Stuedemann, R. (2006).

Cultural differences on knowledge sharing through online communities of

practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 94-107.

Arthur, J.B., and Huntley, C.I. (2005). Ramping up the organizational learning curve:

Assessing the impact of deliberate learning on organizational performance

under gain sharing. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1159-1170.

Ashkanasy, N., Wilderom, C., and Peterson, M. (2010). Introduction to the handbook

of organizational culture and climate, (2nd ed.). In N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom,

and M. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and

climate. (pp. 3-11). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Ashraf, M., Khalid, M.M., Yousaf, U., and Rehman, C.A. (2011). Assessing impact

of management support on perceived managerial training effectiveness in

public organizations of Pakistan. European Journal of Social Sciences, 22(1).

Augier, M., and Teece, D.J., (2009). Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers

in business strategy and economic performance. Organization Science, 20(2),

410-431.

Aulawi, H., Sudirman, I., Suryadi, K., and Govindaraju, R., (2009). Knowledge

sharing behaviour, antecedent, and their impact on the individual innovation

capability. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 5(12), 2238-2246.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001). Pre-Testing in Survey Development: An

Australian Bureau of Statistics Perspectives. Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Babbie, E. R. (1990). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage.

172

153

15

3

Babbie, E. R. (1992). The practice of social research (6th ed). Belmont, CA:

Wadworth.

Back, A., Von Krogh, G., Seufert, A. and Enkel, E. (2005). Putting knowledge

networks into action: Methodology, development, maintenance. Berlin:

Springer.

Bacon, L. D. (1999, February). Using LISREL and PLS to measure customer

satisfaction. In Seventh Annual Sawtooth Software Conference, La Jolla CA.

Bagozzi, R. P., and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation model

Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.

Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., and Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in

organizational research. Administrative science quarterly, 36(3).

Baharim, S. (2008). The Influence of Knowledge Sharing on Motivation to Transfer

Training: A Malaysian Public Sector Context. Thesis, Melbourne, Australia:

Victoria University.

Bakry, S.H., and Alfantookh, A. (2010). Toward building the knowledge culture:

Reviews and KC-STOPE with six sigma view. International Journal of

Knowledge Society Research, 1(1).

Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction

in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical

considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173-

1182.

Basu, R. (2004). Implementing Quality, London: Thompson.

Bates, R., and Khasawneh, S. (2005). Organizational learning culture, learning

transfer climate and perceived innovation in Jordanian organizations.

International Journal of Training and Development, 9(2), 96-109.

Baumgartner, H., and Weijters, B. (2012). Commentary on Common Method Bias in

Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and Procedural Remedies. Journal of

Retailing, 88(4), 563-566.

Bell, J., (2010). Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First- Time Researchers

in Education, Health And Social Science (4th Edition), Maidenhead: Open

University PressBerg, K. E. and Latin, R. W. (2004). Essentials of research

173

153

15

3

methods in health, physical education, exercise science, and recreation. USA:

Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

Berg, B. L., and Lune, H. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social

sciences (Vol. 5). Boston: Pearson.

Berg, M.E., Dean, G., Gottschalk, P., and Karlsen, J.T. (2008). Police management

roles as determinants of knowledge sharing attitude in criminal investigations.

International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(3), 271-284.

Berrio, A. A. (2003). An Organizational Culture Assessment Using the Competing

Values Framework: A profile of Ohio State University Extension. Extension

Journal, 2(699), 1-52.

Bhatt, G.A. (2002). Management strategies for individual knowledge and

organizational knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 31-39.

Birkinshaw, J. (2010). Reinventing Management. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Blankenship, S. S., and Ruona, W. (2009). Exploring knowledge sharing in social

structures: Potential contributions to an overall knowledge management

strategy. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(3), 290-306.

Blomstermo, A., Eriksson, K., Lindstrand, A., and Sharma, D. (2004). The perceived

usefulness of network experiential knowledge in the internationalizing firm.

Journal of International Management, 10(3), 355-373.

Boateng, H., Dzigbordi Dzandu, M., and Tang, Y. (2014). An investigation into

knowledge acquisition idiosyncrasies in Ghanaian universities. VINE: The

journal of information and knowledge management systems, 44(4), 579-591.

Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., and Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioural intention

formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators,

social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS quarterly, 29(1),

87-111.

Bock, G.-W., and Kim, Y.-G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory

study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources

Management Journal, 15(2), 14–21.

174

153

15

3

Bonner, D. (2002). Knowledge: From theory to practice to golden opportunity.

American Society for Training and Development, September-October, pp. 12-

13.

Brinckerhoff, P. (2013). Understanding the Different Cultures of Different

Generations. The Bridgespan Group.

Buckley, P.J., and Carter, M.J. (2003). A formal analysis of knowledge combination

in multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5),

371-384.

Bukowitz, W. and Williams, R. (1999). The Knowledge Management Fieldbook. FT

Press. Haworth

Bures, V. (2003). Cultural barriers in knowledge sharing. Economic and

Management, 6, 57-62

Burgaz, B. (1997). Managerial roles approach and the prominent study of Henry

Mintzberg and some empirical studies upon the principal works. Haccettepe

University Egotism Faculties Dergisi, 13, 9-20.

Burgess, D. (2005). ‘What motivates employees to transfer knowledge outside their

work unit?”. Journal of Business Communication, 42(4), 324-348.

Butterfield, R., Edwards, C., and Woodall, J. (2005). The new public management

and managerial roles: The case of the police sergeant. British Journal of

Management, 16(4), 329-341.

Cameron, K. S. (2009). An introduction to competing value framework.

Organizational culture white paper. Haworth.

Cameron, K.S. and Freeman, S.J. (1991). Cultural Congruence, Strength, and Type:

Relationships to Effectiveness. Research in Organizational Change and

Development, 5, 23-58.

Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational

Culture: Based on the Competing Value Framework. Addison-Wesley:

Reading, MA.

Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2006). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational

Culture. Based on the Competing Value Framework, revised edition, New

York: Wiley.

175

153

15

3

Cameron, K.S. (2004). A process for changing organizational culture.

Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., and Reiter‐Palmon, R. (2013). Leadership, Creative

Problem‐Solving Capacity, and Creative Performance: The Importance of

Knowledge Sharing. Human Resource Management, 52 (1), 95-121.

Carmelli, A., and Waldman, D.A. (2010). Leadership, behavioural context, and the

performance of workgroups in a knowledge-intensive setting. The Journal of

Technology Transfer, 35(4), 384-400.

Carmelli, A., Atwater, L., and Levi, A. (2011). How leadership enhances employees’

knowledge sharing: The intervening roles of relational and organizational

identification. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 257-274.

Carroll, S.J., and Gillen, D.J. (2002). Exploring the teaching function in the

managerial role. Journal of Management Development, 21(5), 330-342.

Cartan, G., and Vilkinas, T. (1997). How different are the roles displayed by female

and male managers? Women in Management Review, 12(4), 129-135.

Casimir, G., Ng, Y. N. K., and Cheng, C. L. P. (2012). Using IT to share knowledge

and the TRA. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(3), 461-479.

Cavaliere, V., and Lombardi, S. (2015). Exploring different cultural configurations:

how do they affect subsidiaries’ knowledge sharing behaviours? Journal of

Knowledge Management, 19(2), 141-163.

Chang, C.L. (2011). Effects of social capital structure on organizational learning.

African Journal of Business Management, 5(18), 7691-7701.

Chang, S. J., van Witteloostuijn, A., and Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: common

method variance in international business research. Journal of International

Business Studies, 41(2), 178-184.

Chatterjee, S. R., and Pearson, C. A. (2002). Work Goals of Asian Managers Field

Evidence from Singapore, Malaysia, India, Thailand, Brunei, and Mongolia.

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2(2), 251-268.

176

153

15

3

Chatzoglou, P.D., and Vraimaki, E. (2009). Knowledge sharing behaviour of bank

employees in Greece. Business Process Management Journal, 15(2), 245-266.

Chawla, D., and Joshi, H. (2010). Knowledge management initiatives in Indian

public and private sector organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management,

14(6), 811-827.

Chen, C. C. (2011). Factors affecting high school teachers’ knowledge-sharing

Behaviours. Social Behaviour and Personality, 39(7), 993-1008.

Cheng, M.Y., Ho, J.S., and Lau, P.M. (2009). Knowledge sharing in academic

institutions: A study of Multimedia University in Malaysia. Electronic Journal

of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 313-324.

Chennamaneni, A. (2006). Determinants of Knowledge Sharing Behaviours:

Developing and Testing an Integrated Theoretical. Doctoral Dissertation, PhD.

Thesis, The University of Texas.13.

Chennamaneni, A., Teng, J. T., and Raja, M. K. (2012). A unified model of

knowledge sharing behaviours: theoretical development and empirical test.

Behaviour and Information Technology, 31(11), 1097-1115.

Chew, M.M., Cheng, J.L., and Petrovic-Lazarevic, S. (2006). Manager’s role in

implementing organizational change: Case of the restaurant industry in

Melbourne. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 2(1), 58-67.

Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation

modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7-16.

Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of

partial least squares (pp. 655-690). Berlin: Springer.

Chin-Loy, C., and Mujtaba, B. G. (2007). The influence of organizational culture on

the success of knowledge management practices with North American

companies International Business and Economics Research Journal, 6(3), 15-

28.

Choi, S. Y., Kang, Y. S., and Lee, H. (2008). The effects of socio-technical enablers

on knowledge sharing: an exploratory examination. Journal of Information

Science, 34(5), 742-754.

177

153

15

3

Chong, C.W. Yuen, Y.Y. and Gan, G.C. (2014). Knowledge sharing of academic

staff. Library Review, 63(3), 203-223.

Choo, C.W., and Neto, R. (2010). Beyond the ba: Managing enabling contexts in

knowledge organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(4), 592-610.

Chow, S., Shao, J. and Wang, H. (2003). Sample Size Calculations in Clinical

Research. USA: CRC Press.

Coakes, E. (2003). Knowledge Management: Current Issues and Challenges. Idea

Group Publishing. USA: IRM.

Collins, D. (1998). Organizational Change: Sociological Perspectives. London:

Routledge.

Connaway, L. and Powell, R. (2010). Basic Research Methods for Librarians (5th

ed). Canada: ABC-CLIO.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Crossman, J., and Noma, H. (2013). Sunao as Character: Its Implications for Trust

and Intercultural Communication within Subsidiaries of Japanese

Multinationals in Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 543-555.

Cummings, J. (2003). Knowledge Sharing: A Review of the Literature. The World

Bank Operations Evaluation Department.

Danish, R.Q., Munir, Y. and Butt, S.S.D. (2012). Moderating Role of Organizational

Culture between Knowledge Management and Organizational Effectiveness in

Service Sector. World Applied Sciences Journal, 20(1), 45-53.

Darroch, J. (2003). Developing a measure of knowledge management behaviours and

practices. Journal of knowledge management, 7(5), 41-54.

Dasanayaka, S.W., and Makalanda, I. (2008). A literature survey on organizational

culture and innovation. In Issues in Global Business and Management

Research: Proceedings of the 2008 International Online Conference on

Business and Management (IOCBM 2008) (pp. 539-550).

Daud, S., Rahim, R.E., and Alimun, R. (2008). Knowledge creation and innovation

in classroom. International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), pp. 75-79.

178

153

15

3

Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: Managing what your

organization knows. Boston, MA. : Harvard Business School Press.

Dawes, S. S., Gharawi, M. A., and Burke, G. B. (2012). Transnational public sector

knowledge networks: Knowledge and information sharing in a multi-

dimensional context. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 112-120.

Dawson, J. F. (2013). Moderation in Management Research: What, Why, When, and

How. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-19.

De Jong, J. P., and Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees'

innovative behaviour. European Journal of innovation management, 10(1), 41-

64.

De Long, D.W., and Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge

management. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-127.

De Waal, A.A.,Van der Heijden, B.I., Selvarajah, C., and Meyer, D. (2012).

Characteristics of high performing manager in The Netherlands. Leadership

and Organization Development Journal, 33(2), 131-148.

Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of

Corporate Life. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

DeCoster, J. (1998). Overview of factor analysis.

Denning, S. (2001). The springboard: How storytelling ignites action in knowledge

era organizations. London: Butterworth Heinemann.

Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. U., and Webster Jr, F. E. (1993). Corporate Culture

Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad

Analysis. Journal of marketing, 57(1), 23-37.

Dew, N., Velamuri, S.R., and Venkataraman, S. (2004). Dispersed knowledge and an

entrepreneurial theory of the firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 659-679.

Ding, Z., and Ng, F. (2009). Knowledge sharing among architects in a project design

team: an empirical test of theory of reasoned action in China. Chinese

Management Studies, 3(2), 130-142.

Dixon, B.E., McGowan, J.J., and Cravens, G.D. (2009). Knowledge sharing using

codification and collaboration technologies to improve healthcare: Lessons

179

153

15

3

from the public sector. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 7,

249-259.

Duygulu, E., and Ozeren, E. (2009). The effects of leadership styles and

organizational culture on firm’s innovativeness. African Journal of Business

Management, 3(9), 475-485.

Ebrahimi, B.P., Petrick, J.A., and Young, S.A. (2005). Managerial role motivation

and role-related ethical orientation in Hong Kong. Journal of Business Ethics,

60(1), 29-45.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock

(Ed), Handbook on research on teaching (pp.119-161).New York: Macmillan.

Erkutlu, H. (2012). The impact of organizational culture on the relationship between

shared leadership and team proactivity. Team Performance Management,

18(1/2), 102-119.

Erwin Z. (2013). "What is Fayolism?." Retrieved from

http://www.qwhatis.com/what-is-fayolism

Eweje, G., and Brunton, M. (2010). Ethical perceptions of business students in a

New Zealand university: do gender, age and work experience matter? Business

Ethics: A European Review, 19(1), 95-111.

Ezekiel, M., and Fox, K. A. (1959). Methods of Correlation and Regression

Analysis, Linear and Curvilinear. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Fathi, N. M., Eze, U. C., and Goh, G. G. G. (2011). Key determinants of knowledge

sharing in an electronics manufacturing firm in Malaysia. Library Review,

60(1), 53-67.

Fernandez, S., and Rainey, H. (2006). Managing Successful Organizational Change

in the Public Sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168-176.

Fong, P., and Wong, K. C. (2009). Knowledge and experience sharing in projects-

based building maintenance community of practice. International Journal of

Knowledge Management Studies, 3(3), 275–294.

Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing

Research, 382-388.

http://www.qwhatis.com/what-is-fayolism

180

153

15

3

Foss, N. J., Husted, K., and Michailova, S. (2010). Governing knowledge sharing in

organizations: Levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research

directions. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 455-482.

Fraser, L., and Lawley, M. (2000). Questionnaire design and administration: A

practical guide. Brisbane: Wiley.

Gaal, Z., Szabo, L., Obermayer-Kovács, N. and Csepregi, A. (2012). Middle

Managers’ Maturity of Knowledge Sharing: Investigation of Middle Managers

working at Medium- and Large-sized Enterprises. The Electronic Journal of


Gabarro, John J. (1992). Managing People and Organizations. Boston: Harvard

Business Press.

Gagne, M. (2009). A Model of Knowledge-Sharing Motivation. Human Resource

Management, 48(4), 571– 589.

Gang, K., and Ravichandran, T. (2015). Exploring the Determinants of Knowledge

Exchange in Virtual Communities. Engineering Management, IEEE

Transactions, 62(1), 89-99.

Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., and Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling

and regression: Guideline for research Practice. Communication for the

Association for Information Systems, 4, 1-79.

Ghaznavi, M., Perry, M., Logan, K. and Toulson, P. (2011). Knowledge Sharing in

Ego-Centered Knowledge Networks of Professionals: Role of Transitive

Memory, Trust, and Reciprocity, Academic Conferences.

Gholami, M. H., Asli, M. N., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., and Noruzy, A. (2013).

Investigating the influence of knowledge management practices on

organizational performance: an empirical study. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica,

10(2), 205-216.

Ghuman, K. (2010). Management: Concepts, practices, and cases. New Delhi: Tata

McGraw-Hill.

181

153

15

3

Goh, S.K. and Sandhu, M.S. (2013). Knowledge Sharing Among Malaysian

Academics: Influence of Affective Commitment and Trust. Electronic Journal

of Knowledge Management, 11(1), 38-48.

Gonçalves, M.A., Alemão, M.M. and dos Santos, L.M. (2010). Decision Making

Process and Modes of Governance: a Comparative Study between Brazilian

and British Hospitals. Corporate Ownership & Control, 365.

Goodman, E. A., Zammuto, R. F., and Gifford, B. D. (2001). The competing values

framework: Understanding the impact of organizational culture on the quality

of work life. Organization Development Journal, 19(3), 58.

Gottschalk, P. (2002). The chief information officer: a study of managerial roles in

Norway. In System Sciences, 2002. HICSS. Proceedings of the 35th Annual

Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 3133-3142).

Gourlay, S., and Nurse, A. (2005). Flaws in the engine of knowledge creation. In:

A.F. Buono and F. Poufelt, Issues in Knowledge Management. New York:

Information Age Publishing.

Gray, J.H., and Densten, I.L. (2005). Towards an integrative model of organizational

culture and knowledge management. International Journal of Organizational

Behaviour, 9(2), 594-603.

Guba, E.G., and Y. S. Lincoln. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage Publication.

Gupta, K. S. (2008). A comparative analysis of knowledge sharing climate.

Knowledge and Process Management, 15(3), 186-195.

Haenlein, M., and Kaplan, A. M. (2004). A beginner's guide to partial least squares

analysis. Understanding statistics, 3(4), 283-297.

Haines, S., and McKinlay, J. (2007). Reinventing Strategic Planning: The Systems

Thinking Approach. USA: System Thinking Press

Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., and Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial

least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). USA: Sage

Publications.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate

analysis. Prentice-Hall, London.

182

153

15

3

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. and Anderson, Rolph E. (2010). Multivariate

Data Analysis: A Global Perspective (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet.

The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.

Hair, J.F., Hult, G.M., Ringle, C.M., and Sarstedlt, M. (2014). A primer on partial

least squares structural modelling (PLS SEM). USA: Sage Publication, Inc.

Haivas, S., Hofmans, J. and Pepermans, R. (2012). Self-Determination Theory as a

framework for exploring the impact of the organisational context on volunteer

motivation: A study of Romanian volunteers. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly, 41(6), 1195-1214.

Hale, J. L., Householder, B.J., and Greene, K.L. (2003). The Theory of reasoned

action: Developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hales, C. (2002). Bureaucracy-lite and continuities in managerial work. British

Journal of Management, 13(1), 51-66.

Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Petska, K. S., and Creswell, J. D.

(2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 224.

Hardy, B., and Ford, L. R. (2014). It’s Not Me, It’s Your Miscomprehension in

Surveys. Organizational Research Methods.

Harorimana, D. (2010). Cultural Implications of Knowledge Sharing, Management

and Transfer: Identifying Competitive Advantage. Hershey, PA: Information

Science Reference.

Hashim, K.F. and Tan, F.B. (2015). The mediating role of trust and commitment on

members’ continuous knowledge sharing intention: A commitment-trust theory

perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 35(2015)

145-151.

Hassandoust, F., Logeswaran, R., and Kazerouni, M.F. (2011). Behavioural factors

Influencing virtual knowledge sharing: theory of reasoned action. Journal of

Applied Research in Higher Education, 3(2), 116-134.

Hatch, M.J. (1993).The Dynamics of Organizational Culture. Academy of

Management Review, 18(4), 657-693.

183

153

15

3

Hellriegel, D., and Slocum, J. W. (2007). Fundamentals of Organizational

Behaviour. Mason, Ohia: South-western Cengage.

Hendriks, P. H. (2004). Assessing the role of culture in knowledge sharing. In

Proceedings of Fifth European Conference in Organization, Knowledge,

Learning and Capabilities, Innsbruk.

Henseler, J., and Chin, W. W. (2010). A comparison of approaches for the analysis

of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path

modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 17(1), 82-109.

Henseler, J., and Fassott, G. (2010). Testing moderating effects in PLS path

models:An illustration of available procedures. In Handbook of partial least

squares (pp.713-735). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of Partial Least

Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. Advances in International

Marketing, 20, 277–319.

Hine, D.C., Helmersson, H., and Mattsson, J. (2008). Individual and collective

knowledge: An analysis of intellectual capital in an Australian biotechnology

venture using the text analytic tool Pertex. International Journal of

Organizational Analysis, 15(4), 358-378.

Hitam, M., and Mohamad, S. (2012). Knowledge sharing practice in private sectors:

A software house perspective. Journal of Advanced Computer Science and

Technology Research, 2, 1-9.

Hoch, J.E. (2014). 'Shared leadership, diversity, and information sharing in teams',

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 541-564.

Hock, N. T., Ling, T. N., and San, L. Y. (2009). Trust: facilitator of knowledge-

sharing culture. Communications of the IBIMA, 7(15), 137-42.

Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations. Software of the

Mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences Comparing Values, Behaviours,

Institutions and Organizations across Nations (2nd ed). London: Sage.

Hong, D., Suh, H., and Koo, C. (2011). Developing strategies for overcoming barrier

to knowledge sharing based on conversational knowledge management: A case

184

153

15

3

study of a financial company. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(2), 14417-

14427.

Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Shepherd, D. A., and Bott, J. P. (2009). Managers'

corporate entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position. Journal

of Business Venturing, 24(3), 236-247.

Hsu, M. and Chang, C. (2014). Examining interpersonal trust as a facilitator and

uncertainty as an inhibitor of intra-organisational knowledge sharing. Info

Systems Journal, 24(2), 119-142.

Hunt, S. D., Chonko, L. B., and Wilcox, J. B. (1984). Ethical problems of marketing

researchers. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(3), 309-324.

Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework.

Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.

Islam, M, Z., Ahmed, S.M., Hasan, I., and Ahmed, S.U. (2011). Organizational

culture and knowledge sharing: Empirical evidence from service organizations.


Ismail, M. B., and Yusof, Z. M. (2010). The impact of individual factors on

knowledge sharing quality. Journal of Organizational Knowledge

Management, 2010, 1-13.

Ismail, N. A., and King, M. (2004). Knowledge sharing behaviour in the public

sector: The business process management perspectives. 1-38.

Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., and Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods

sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1),

3- 20.

Jacobs, E. J., and Roodt, G. (2011). The mediating effect of knowledge sharing

between organisational culture and turnover intentions of professional nurses.

South African Journal of Information Management, 13(1), 1-6.

Jain, A.K. and Jeppesen, J. (2013). 'Knowledge management practices in a public

sector organisation: the role of leaders' cognitive styles', Journal of Knowledge

Management, 17(3), 347-362.

185

153

15

3

Jain, K. K., Sandhu, M. S., and Sidhu, G. K. (2007). Knowledge sharing among

academic staff: a case study of business schools in Klang Valley, Malaysia

(Doctoral dissertation, UCSI Centre for Research Excellence).

Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., and Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of

construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and

consumer research. Journal of consumer research, 30(2), 199-218.

Jayasingam, S, Ansari, M, Jantan, M and Ramayah, T., (2013) Knowledge

Management Practices and Performance: Are They Truly Linked? Knowledge

Management Research and Practice, 11, 255–264.

Jayasingam, S., Ansari, M. A., and Jantan, M. (2010). Influencing knowledge

workers: the power of top management. Industrial Management and Data

Systems, 110(1), 134-151.

Joseph, K. (2009). The influence of organizational culture on organizational learning,

worker involvement, and worker productivity. International Journal of

Business and Management, 4(9), 243-250.

Kaarst-Brown, M. L., Nicholson, S., Von Dran, G. M., and Stanton, J. M. (2004).

Organizational cultures of libraries as a strategic resource. Library Trends,

53(1), 33–53.

Kalsom Salleh and Syed Noh Syed Ahmad. (2005). Knowledge management in the

local authorities – a suitable platform for e-government. Proceedings of the

International Conference on Knowledge Management (ICKM).

Kamaluddin, A. and R. A. Rahman. (2010).The moderating effect of organizational

Culture on intellectual capital and organizational effectiveness relationships.

Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, January

2010. Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, pp: 584-595.

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C., and Wei, K.K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to

electronic knowledge repositories. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113-143.

Karkoulian, S. and Mahseredjian, J.A. (2012). Prediction of Knowledge Acquisition,

Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Utilization from Locus of Control: An

Empirical Investigation. Business Studies Journal, 4(2), 117-130.

186

153

15

3

Kathiravelu, S. R., Mansor, N. N. A., and Kenny, K. (2013). Factors Influencing

Knowledge Sharing Behaviour (KSB) among Employees of Public Services in

Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and

Management Sciences, 2(3), 107-119.

Kaupilla, O.P., Rajala, R., and Jyrama, A. (2011). Knowledge sharing through virtual

teams across borders and boundaries. Management Learning, 42(4), 395-418.

Kent, R. (2001). Data construction and data analysis for survey research. New

York: Palgrave.

Keskin, H., Akgün, A. E., Günsel, A., and İmamoğlu, S. Z. (2005). The

Relationships between Adhocracy and Clan Cultures and Tacit Oriented KM

Strategy. Journal of Transnational Management, 10(3), 39-53.

Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., and Held, C. (2010). The interplay between individual and

collective knowledge: Technologies for organizational learning and knowledge

building. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 8, 33-44.

King, W.R. (2009). Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning (pp 3-

13). Springer US.

Kingston, J. and Macintosh, A. (2000). Knowledge management through multi-

perspective modelling: Representing and distributing organizational memory.

Knowledge-based Systems, 13, 121-131.

Kitapci, H., Aydin, B., and Celik, V. (2012). The effects of organizational learning

capacity and innovativeness on financial performance: An empirical study.


Kitchenham, B. A., and Pfleeger, S. L. (2002). Principles of survey research part 3:

Constructing a survey instrument. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes,

27(2), 20-24.

Kiyomiya, T., Matsunaga, M. and Matake, K. (2003). Collaborative Practices in

Japanese Industrial Systems: A Perspective of Communicative Reification.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.

(2nd ed). New York: The Guilford press.

Koontz, H., and Weihrich, H., (2008). Essentials of Management. New Delhi: Tata

McGraw-Hill.

187

153

15

3

Koutroumanis, D. A., and Alexakis, G. (2009). Organizational culture in the

restaurant industry: Implications for change. Journal of Organizational

Culture, Communication and Conflict, 13(2), 45

Kraut, A. I., Pedigo, P. R., McKenna, D. D., and Dunnette, M. D. (2005). The role of

the manager: What's really important in different management jobs. The

Academy of Management Executive, 19(4), 122-129.

Kumar, D., Ismail, N. A., and Govindarajo, N. S. (2014). Instrument: Precarious

working condition (IPWC) integrating mixed mode of research in instrument

construction. Man in India, 94(4), 95-113.

Kumar, N., and Rose, R. C. (2010). Examining the link between Islamic work ethic

and innovation capability. Journal of management development, 29(1), 79-93.

Kumar, N., and Rose, R.C. (2012). The impact of knowledge sharing and Islamic

work ethic on innovation capability. Cross-cultural Management: An

International Journal, 19(2), 142-165.

Kumari, N. and Takashi, Y. (2014). Meta-Analytic Review of the Antecedents of

Knowledge Sharing: Focus on Public vs. Private Organizations and IT vs. Non-

IT Facilitating. International Business Research, 7(12), 29-43.

Lakshman, C. (2007). “Organizational Knowledge Leadership: A Grounded Theory

Approach”. Leadership and Organisational Development Journal. 28(1), 51-

75.

Lee, C., Lee, G., and Lin, H. (2007). The role of organizational capabilities in

successful e-business implementation. Business Process Management Journal,

13 (5), 677- 693.

Lee, H., and Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and

organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination.

Journal of management information systems, 20(1), 179-228.

Lee, H.S. and Hong, S.A. (2014). Factors Affecting Hospital Employees’ Knowledge

Sharing Intention and Behaviour, and Innovation Behaviour. Osong Public

Health Res Perspect, 5(3), 148-155.

188

153

15

3

Lee, H.S. (2013). A conceptual model for Community of Practice and Its

Implications for Human resource Development Practice. Learning and

Performance Quarterly, 2(1), 14-29.

Lee, J. (2001). The impact of knowledge sharing, organisational capability and

Partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information and Management,

38(5), 323-335.

Li, Z., Shen, H., and Xi, Y. (2010). Do knowledge characteristics matter? A test of

the relationship between knowledge characteristics and performance. SAM

Advance Management Journal, 75(2), 38.

Liang, T.P., Liu, C.C., and Wu, C.H. (2008). Can social exchange theory explain

individual knowledge sharing behaviour: A meta-analysis. ICIS 2008

Proceedings.

Liao, S., Wu, C., Hu, D. and Tsuei, G. (2009). Knowledge Acquisition, Absorptive

Capacity, and Innovation Capability: An Empirical Study of Taiwan’s

Knowledge Intensive Industries. World Academy of Science, Engineering and

Technology, 53,160-167.

Liebowitz, J. and Chen, Y. (2003). Knowledge sharing proficiencies: The key to

knowledge management. In Holsapple, C.W. (Ed.), Handbook of Knowledge

Management 1: Knowledge Matters (pp.409-24). Berlin: Springler-Verlag.

Lin, C.P. (2007). To share or not to share: Modeling knowledge sharing using

exchange ideology as moderator. Personnel Review, 36(3), 457-475.

Lincoln, S. (2010). From the individual to the world: how the competing values

framework can help organizations improve global strategic performance,

Emerging Leadership Journal, 3(1), 3-9.

Linde, C. (2001). Narrative and social tacit knowledge sharing. Journal of


Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S., Liedtke, C., and Choo, A. S. (2004).

Integrating quality management practices with knowledge creation processes.

Journal of Operations Management, 22 (6), 589-607.

Ling, C.T.N. (2011). Culture and Trust in Fostering Knowledge-Sharing. Electronic

Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 328-339.

189

153

15

3

Loch, K. D., and Conger, S. (1996). Evaluating ethical decision making and

computer use. Communications of the ACM, 39(7), 74-83.

Lok, P., and Crawford, J. (2004). The effect of organizational culture and leadership

style on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A cross-national

comparison. Journal of Management Development, 23(4), 321-338.

Lukasova, R., Frankova, E., and Surynek, A. (2006). Organizational culture of Czech

manufacturing companies: An empirical typology. Journal of East European

Management Studies, 11(4), 349-371.

Lumpkin, G.T. (2005). The role of organizational learning in the opportunity-

recognition process. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(4), 451-472.

Mackenzie, N., and Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and

methodology. Issues in educational research, 16(2), 193-205.

MacKenzie, S. B., and Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing:

causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4),

542- 555.

Magretta, J. (2003). What Management is: how it works and why it’s everyone’s

business. Profile Books.

Malina, M., Norreklit, H., and Selto, F. (2011). Lessons Learned: Advantages and

Disadvantages of Mixed Method Research. Qualitative Research in Accounting

& Management, 8(1), 59-71.

Manaf, H. A., and Marzuki, N. A. (2014). The Roles of Personality in the Context of

Knowledge Sharing: A Malaysian Perspective. Asian Social Science, 10(1),

138-150.

Marinova, S.V. (2005). An Organizational Culture Perspective on Role Emergence

and Role Enactment. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,

University of Maryland.

Marks, P., Polak, P., McCoy, S., and Galletta, D. (2008). Sharing Knowledge.

Communications of the ACM, 51 (2), 60-65.

Marvasti, A.B. (2004). Qualitative Research in Sociology: An Introduction. London:

Sage.

190

153

15

3

Marwell, G., and Oliver, P. (1993). The Critical Mass in Collective Action: A Micro

Social Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Masrek, M. N., Yusof, N. I., Noordin, S. A., and Johare, R. (2013). Research Article

Exploring the Relationship between Job Design and Knowledge Productivity:

A Conceptual Framework in the Context of Malaysian Administrative and

Diplomatic Officers. Journal of Organisational Knowledge Management,

2013, 1.

McCrimmon,. M. (2010). A new role for management in today's post-industrial

organization. Ivey Business Journal.

McDermott, R., and O’Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing

knowledge. Journal of knowledge management, 5(1), 76-85.

Mills, A.J. (2002). Studying the gendering of organizational culture overtime:

Concerns, issues, and strategies. Gender, work, and organization, 9(3), 286-

307.

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers, not MBAs: a hard look at the soft practice of

managing and management development. Berrett-Koehler.

Molm, L.D. (2001). Theories of social exchange and exchange networks. In G.

Ritzerand and B. Smart (Eds.), Handbook of Social Theory (pp. 260-272).

London: Sage

Momeni, S., Zohoori, M., Musram, H. A. M., and Hosseinipour, S. J. (2013).

Relationship between Organisational Structure and Knowledge Sharing

Culture. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 5(2),

518.

Moran, T. J., and Meso, P. (2011). A resource based view of manufacturing strategy

and implications to organizational culture and human resources. Journal of

Business and Economics Research (JBER), 6(11), 99-110

Moshari, J. (2013). Knowledge Management Issues in Malaysian Organizations: the

Perceptions of Leaders. Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics an

Information Technology, 3(50), 1-13.

Mueller, J. (2012). Knowledge sharing between project teams and its cultural

antecedents. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(3), 435-447.

191

153

15

3

Mueller, J. (2015). Formal and Informal Practices of Knowledge Sharing Between

Project Teams and Enacted Cultural Characteristics. Project Management

Journal, 46(1), 53-68.

Mukherjee, U. (2011). Knowledge Sharing. The Internal Auditor, 68 (1), 56-61.

Mustafa, M., Richards, J. J., and Ramos, H. M. (2013). High Performance Human

Resource Practices and Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Mediating Effect of

Middle Managers Knowledge Collecting and Donating Behaviour. Asian

Academy of Management Journal, 18(2), 17-36.

Mustapha, R., and Abdullah, A. (2004). Malaysia Transitions toward a Knowledge

Based Economy. Journal of Technology Studies, 30(3), 51-61.

Mutjaba, B., and McFarlane, D.A. (2005). Traditional and virtual performance

management functions in the age of information technology. Review of

Business Information Systems.

Nassuora, A.B and Hassan, s. (2010). Knowledge Sharing among Academics in

Institutions of Higher Learning, 5th Knowledge Management International

Conference, Terengganu, Malaysia.

Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H., and Swan, J. (2002): Managing

Knowledge Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Ning, N. (2012). Evolution of clan culture and its contemporary significance. Asian

Culture and History, 4(2), 122-126.

Nold, H. A. (2011). Making knowledge management work: tactical to practical

Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 9, 84-94.

Nonaka, I., and Toyama, R. (2005). The theory of the knowledge-creating firm:

subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and corporate change, 14(3),

419-436.

Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating

company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New

York: Oxford Press.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., and Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating

entity: A new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate

change, 9(1), 1-20.

192

153

15

3

Noor, N.M., and Salim, J. (2011). Factors influencing employee knowledge sharing

capabilities in electronic government agencies in Malaysia. International

Journal of Computer Science Issues, 8(4), 106-114.

Norwawi, S. (2010). Leadership Styles: A Comparative Analysis of PTD Officers and

DG Officers in the Ministry of Education Malaysia.

O’Daniel, M., and Rosenstein, A. (2008). A Survey of the Impact of Disruptive

Behaviours and Communication Defects on Patient Safety. The Joint

Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 34(8), 464-471.

Olatokun, W., and Nwafor, C. I. (2012). The effect of extrinsic and intrinsic

motivation on knowledge sharing intentions of civil servants in Ebonyi State

Nigeria. Information Development, 28(3), 216-234.

Olmez, M., Schandera, M., Kissel, M. and Lindemann, U. (2013). Using Decision

Classification Criteria for Knowledge Acquisition and Transfer in Multi-

Perspective Decision Making Processes. The Journal of Innovation Impact,

5(1), 17-30.

Omar, R., Lim, K.Y. and Basiruddin, R. (2014). Board of directors and small

medium enterprise’s firm growth with firm culture as moderating factor in

Malaysia, Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 164(2014), 315-323.

Ortenblad, A. (2003). Organizational learning: A radical perspective. International

Journal of Management Reviews, 4(1), 71-85.

Osborne R.L., and Cowen, S.S. (2002). High performance companies: The

distinguishing profile. Management Decision, 40(3), 227-231.

Ouwuegbuzie, A.J., (2002). Positivist, post-postivists, post-structuralists, and post –

modernists: Why can’t we all get along? Towards a framework for unifying

research paradigms. Education, 122, (3), 518-530.

Pacharapha, T., and Vathanophas Ractham, V. (2012). Knowledge acquisition: the

roles of perceived value of knowledge content and source. Journal of


Panagiotis, M., Alexandros, S., and George, P. (2014). Organizational Culture and

Motivation in the Public Sector. The Case of the City of Zografou. Procedia

Economics and Finance, 14, 415-424.

193

153

15

3

Papa, M. (2008). Organizational Communication Perspectives and Trends (4th ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Park, J., and Gursoy, D. (2012). Generation effects on work engagement among US

hotel employees. International journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1195

1202.

Parker, M. (2000). Organizational Culture and Identity. London: Sage.

Parry, K.W., and Proctor-Thomson, S.B. (2003). Leadership, culture, and

performance: The case of New Zealand public sector. Journal of Change

Management, 3(4), 376- 399.

Pearson, C.A., and Chatterjee, S.R. (2003). Managerial roles in Asia: An Empirical

Study of Mintzberg’s role formulation in four Asian countries. Journal of

Management Development, 22(8), 694-707.

Pearson, C.A., Chatterjee, S.R., and Okachi, K. (2003). Managerial work role

perceptions in Japanese organizations: An empirical study. International

Journal of Management, 20(1), 100-107.

Pee, L.G., and Kankanhalli, A. (2008). Understanding the drivers, enablers, and

performance of knowledge management in public organizations. 2nd

International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance,

439-466.

Peng, D.X., and Lai, F. (2012). Using partial least squares in operations management

research: A practical guideline and summary of past research. Journal of

Operations Management, 30(2012), 467-480.

Pennington, P., Townsend, C., and Cummins, R. (2003). The relationship of

leadership practices to culture. Journal of Leadership Education, 2(1), 27-44.

Pierce, B. L. (2007). Eleanor Roosevelt. Famous Americans-Second Series, 463.

Podsakoff, P. M., and Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:

Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.

Podsakoff, P. M., and Todor, W. D. (1985). Relationships between leader reward and

punishment behaviour and group processes and productivity. Journal of

Management, 11(1), 55-73.

194

153

15

3

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).

Common method biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the

literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5),

879.

Poh, L.G. and Erwee, R. (2004). Knowledge creation and integration in project

teams: A study of international telecommunication companies in Singapore.

Journal of Management and World Business Research, 1(1), 23-44.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. New York: Anchor Day Book.

Polit, D. F., and Hungler, B. P. (1999). Nursing research principles and methods.

Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

Pride, W., Hughes, R., and Kapoor, J. (2010). Business. Mason, MA: Cengage

Learning.

Public Service Department Malaysia. Government of Malaysia: Service Secular.

Punia, B.K. (2013). Knowledge Sharing Behaviour and Knowledge Management: An

Interactive Analysis through Literature Review. JIM QUEST, 9(1), 86.

Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria:

Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis.

Management Science, 29, 363-377.

Racelis, A.C. (2005). An exploratory study of organizational culture in Philippine

firms. Philippine Management Review, 12, 72-86.

Rahman A. (2011) Knowledge Sharing Practices: A Case Study at Malaysia's

Healthcare Research Institutes / Ramlee Abdul Rahman. In: Asia-Pacific

Conference on Library and Information Education and Practice 2011 (A-

LIEP2011): Issues, Challenges and Opportunities, 22-24 June 2011, Pullman

Putrajaya Lakeside, Malaysia.

Rainey, H. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. San

Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.

Ramachandran, S. D., Chong, S. C., and Ismail, H. (2011). Organisational culture:

An exploratory study comparing faculties' perspectives within public and

private universities in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational

Management, 25(6), 615-634.

195

153

15

3

Ramachandran, S. D., Chong, S. C., and Wong, K. Y. (2013). Knowledge

management practices and enablers in public universities: a gap analysis.

Campus-Wide Information Systems, 30(2), 76-94.

Ramayah, T, Jasmine, A. L, and Yeap, J. I, (2013). An Empirical Inquiry on

Knowledge Sharing Among Academicians in Higher Learning Institutions.

Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 51(2), 131-154.

Ramayah, T., and Jantan, M. (2004). Technology acceptance: An individual

perspective, current, and future research in Malaysia. Review of Business

Research, 2(1), 103-111.

Ramezani, Z.N., Khabiri, M., Alvani, S.M., and Tondnevis, F., (2011). Use of

Mintzberg’s model of managerial roles to evaluate sports federation managers

in Iran. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 10(5), 559-564.

Razzaque, A., Eldabi, T., and Jalal-Karim, A. (2013). Physician virtual community

and medical decision making: Mediating role of knowledge sharing. Journal of

Enterprise Information Management, 26(5), 500-515.

Reiss, M. C., and Mitra, K. (1998). The effects of individual difference factors on the

acceptability of ethical and unethical workplace behaviours. Journal of

Business Ethics, 17(14), 1581-1593.

Reshman, L., Withers, E., and Hartley, J. (2009). Organizational learning and

knowledge in public service organizations: A systematic review of literature.

International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4), 463-494.

Rhoads, R.A., and Collins, C. (2007). Building knowledge cultures: Education and

development in the age of knowledge capitalism. The Review of Higher

Education, 30(4), 488-490.

Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge sharing barriers managers must consider.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35.

Riege. A., and Lindsay, N. (2006). Knowledge Management in the Public Sector:

Stakeholder Partnerships in the Public Policy Development. Journal of


196

153

15

3

Rigdon, E. E., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2010). Structural modeling of

heterogeneous data with partial least squares. Review of marketing research,

7(7), 255-296.

Riggs, C.J., and Rantz, M.J. (2001). A model of staff support to improve retention in

long-term care. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 25(2), 43-54.

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Will, S. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta, Hamburg.

Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.de

Rivera-Vazquez, J.Z., Ortiz-Fournier, L.V., and Flores, R.G. (2009). Overcoming

cultural barriers for innovation and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 13(5), 257-270.

Rolland, N., and Kaminska-Labbe, R. (2008). Networking inside the organization: A

case study on knowledge sharing. Journal of Business Strategy, 29(5), 4-11.

Rose, R.C., Kumar, N., Abdullah, H., and Ling, G.Y. (2008). Organizational culture

as a root of performance improvement: Research and recommendations.

Contemporary Management Research, 4(1), 43-56.

Roy, S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., and Erica, M. (2012). The Effect of

Misspecification of Reflective and Formative Constructs in Operations and

Manufacturing Management Research. Electronic Journal of Business

Research Methods, 10(1), 34-52.

Ryu, S., Ho, S.H., and Han, I., (2003). Knowledge sharing behaviour of physicians in

hospitals. Expert Systems with Applications, 25(1), 113-122.

Saidon, I. M. (2012). Moral disengagement in manufacturing: a Malaysian study of

antecedents and outcomes. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Curtin Graduate

School of Business, Curtin University, Curtin, 2012.

Sajeva, S. (2014). 'Encouraging knowledge sharing among employees: how reward

matters', Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 156(2014), 130-134.

Salim, M., Javed, N., Sharif, K., and Riaz, A. (2011). Antecedents of knowledge

sharing attitude and intentions. European Journal of Scientific Research, 56(1),

44-50.

197

153

15

3

Salleh, K., and Ahmad, S. N. S. (2006). KM strategy for e-government: an

exploratory study of local authorities in Malaysia. In Proceedings of the

Knowledge Management International Conference and Exhibition 2006

(KMICE 2006).

Sanchez, M. E. (1992). Effects of questionnaire design on the quality of survey data.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(2), 206-217.

Sandhu, M.S., Jain, K.K., and Ahmad, I.U. (2011). Knowledge sharing among public

sector employees: Evidences from Malaysia. International Journal of Public

Sector Management, 24(3), 206-226.

Sanz-Valle, R., Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., Jimenez-Jimenez, D., and Perez-Caballero,

L. (2011). Linking organizational learning with technological innovation and

organizational culture. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 997-1015.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2003). Research Methods for Business

Students. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Schermerhorn, J., (2011). Introduction to management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley

and Sons, Inc.

Schimmoeller, L.J. (2010). Leadership styles in competing organizational cultures.

Leadership Review, 10(2), 125-141.

Schrodt, P. (2002). The relationship between organizational identification and

organizational culture: Employee perceptions of culture and identification in a

retail sales organization. Communication Studies, 53(2), 189-202.

Schuman, H., and Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers: Experiments on

question form, wording, and context in attitude surveys. New York: Academic.

Seba, I., Rowley, J., and Delbridge, R. (2012a). Knowledge sharing in the Dubai

police force. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1), 114-128.

Seba, I., Rowley, J., and Lambert, S. (2012b). Factors affecting attitudes and

intentions towards knowledge sharing in the Dubai Police Force. International

Journal of Information Management. 32(4), 372-380.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business. NJ: Wiley.

198

153

15

3

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning

Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Shaari, R. (2004). A practice of knowledge sharing: a case study in a public service

organization. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 3, 121-126.

Shahzad, F., Luqman, A., R., Khan, R., A., and Shabbir, L. (2012). Impact of

Organizational Culture on Organizational Performance: An Overview.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(9),

975-985.

Shukor, N., Nawi, H. S. A., Basaruddin, S., and Rahim, N. M. (2009, April).

Investigation of Knowledge Management Processes among Academicians at

the Faculty of Industrial Information Technology, UNISEL: A Case Study.

Information Management and Engineering, 2009. ICIME'09. International

Conference on (pp. 732-735).

Sirkin, M. R. (2006). Statistics for the Social Sciences. USA: Sage Publishers.

Smedley, J. (2009). Modelling personal knowledge management. OR Insight, 22,

221-233.

Staplehurst, J., and Ragsdell, G. (2010). Knowledge sharing in SMEs: A comparison

of two case study organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice,

11(1), 1-16.

Statsoft Eletronic Statistics Book. How to group objects into similar categories,

cluster analysis. Available at: http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/cluster-

analysis.

Stern, G. S., McCants, T. R., and Pettine, P. W. (1982). Stress and Illness

Controllable and Uncontrollable Life Events' Relative Contributions.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(1), 140-145.

Sun, S. (2008). Organizational culture and its themes. International Journal of

Business and Management, 3(12), 137-141.

Sun, S., and Xu, Z. (2012). Cultural values and their challenges to enterprises.

International Journal of Business Administration, 3(2), 68-73.

199

153

15

3

Suppiah, V., and Sandhu, M.S. (2011). Organizational culture’s influence on tacit

knowledge sharing behaviour. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(3), 462-

477.

Switzer, K.C., Naggy, M.S., and Mullins, M.E. (2005). The influence of training

reputation, managerial support, and self-efficacy on pre-training motivation

and perceived training transfer. Applied HRM Research, 10(1), 21-34.

Syed Ikhsan S. O., and Rowland, F. (2007). Knowledge management in public

organisations in Malaysia. Do people really share? Available

at:http://www.kmtalk.net/article.php?story=200706240101037.

Syed-Ikshan S. O., and Rowland, F. (2004). Benchmarking knowledge management

in public organization in Malaysia. Benchmarking: An International Journal,

11(3), 238-266.

Szabo, L., and Crespregi, A. (2015). Middle managers, their organization and

knowledge sharing: Examination of knowledge sharing maturity. Journal of

Social Sciences Research, 7(1), 1192-1205.

Tangaraja, G., and Rasdi, R. M. (2013). Predictors of Knowledge Sharing Behaviour:

A proposed Model for the Malaysian public sector managers. Graduate

Research in Education, 238-248

Tangaraja, G., Mohd Rasdi, R., Ismail, M., and Abu Samah, B. (2015). Fostering

knowledge sharing behaviour among public sector managers: A proposed

model for the Malaysian public service. Journal of Knowledge Management,

19(1), 121-140.

Tansey, O. (2007). Process tracing and elite interviewing: a case for non-probability

sampling. PS: Political Science and Politics, 40(4), 765-772.

Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social

and behavioural research. USA: Sage.

Taylor, W.A., and Wright, G.H. (2004). Organizational readiness for successful

knowledge sharing: Challenges for public sector managers. Information

Resources Management Journal, 17(2), 22-37.

200

153

15

3

Teh, P.L., and Yong, C.C. (2010). Knowledge sharing in IS personnel:

Organizational behaviour perspective. Journal of Computer Information

Systems, 51(4), 11-21.

Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. Y., and Wu, P. (2009). Empowering individuals for team

innovation in China: Conflict management and problem solving. Negotiation

and Conflict Management Research, 2(2), 185-205.

Tohidinia, Z., and Mosakhani, M. (2010). Knowledge sharing behaviour and its

predictors. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 110(4), 611-631.

Tolstoy, D., (2009). Knowledge combination and knowledge creation in a foreign-

market network. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(2), 202-220.

Trefry, M.G. (2006). A double-edged sword: Organizational culture in multicultural

organizations. International Journal of Management, 23(3), 563-575.

Trivellas, P., and Dargenidou, D. (2009). Organizational culture, job satisfaction, and

higher education service quality: The case of Technological Educational

Institute of Larissa. The TQM Journal, 31(4), 382-399.

Tsai, M.T., and Li, Y.H. (2007). Knowledge creation process in new venture strategy

and performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(4), 371-381.

Tsai, Y. (2011). Relationship between Organizational Culture, Leadership Behaviour

and Job Satisfaction. BMC Health Services Research, 11(1), 11-98.

Tseng, S.M. (2010). The effects of hierarchical culture on knowledge management

practices. Management Research Review, 33(8), 827-839.

Ubius, U., and Alas, R. (2009). Organizational culture types as predictors of

corporate social responsibility. Commerce of Engineering Decisions, 1(61), 90-

99.

Uhlig, D. (2013). Theories of Management Roles. Retrieved from

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/theories-management-roles-34626.html

Urbach, N., and Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural equation modeling in information

systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology

Theory and Application, 11(2), 5-40.

201

153

15

3

Uzunoğlu, E., and Kip, S. M. (2014). Brand communication through digital

influencers: Leveraging blogger engagement. International Journal of

Information Management, 34(5), 592-602.

Vaccaro, I.G., Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, A.J., and Volberda, H.W. (2010).

Management innovation and leadership: The moderating role of organizational

size. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 28-51.

Van den Hooff, B., and de Leeuw Van Weenen, F. (2004). Committed to share:

commitment and CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing. Knowledge

and Process Management, 11(1), 13-24.

Vaus, D.A. (2002). Surveys in Social Research. UK: Routledge.

Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of Favorable User Perceptions: Exploring the Role of

Intrinsic Motivation. MIS quarterly, 23(2), 239-260.

Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., and Rechsteiner, L. (2012). Leadership in organizational

knowledge creation: A review and framework. Journal of Management

Studies, 49(1), 240-277.

Walonick, D. (2009). Organizational Theory and Behaviour. Retrieved from

http://www.statpac.org/walonick/organizational-theory.htm

Wang, S., and Noe, R.A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for

future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 115-131

Webb, N. M., Shavelson, R. J., and Haertel, E. H. (2006). Reliability coefficients and

generalizability theory. Handbook of statistics, 26, 81-124.

Welschen, J., Todorova, N., and Mills, A. M. (2012). An investigation of the impact

of intrinsic motivation on organizational knowledge sharing. International

Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), 8(2), 23-42.

Wiewiora, A., Murphy, G., Trigunarsyah, B., and Brown, K. (2014). Interactions

between Organizational Culture, Trustworthiness, and Mechanisms for

Inter‐Project Knowledge Sharing. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 48-65.

Wilbur, D. (2013). Leveraging Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory to Improve

the Quality of Information Operations. Retrieved from

http://smallwarsjournal.com /jrnl/art/leveraging-hofstede%E2%80%99s-

Cultural dimensions-theory-to-improve-the-quality-of-information-oper

202

153

15

3

Willcocks, S. G. (2002). Adopting a multi-perspective approach to the study of

public sector managerial effectiveness. International Journal of Public Sector

Management, 15(4), 262-280.

Wilson, B. (2010). Using PLS to investigate interaction effects between higher order

branding constructs. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 621-652).

Berlin: Springer.

Wong, K. K. K. (2013). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-

SEM) Techniques Using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24.

Wong, K.K. (2010). Handling small survey sample size and skewed dataset with

partial least square path modelling. Vau: The Magazine of Marketing Research

and Intelligence Association, November, 20-23.

Wu, W. (2013). "To Share Knowledge or Not: Dependence On Knowledge- Sharing

Satisfaction", Social Behaviour and Personality, 41(1), 47-58.

Xue, Y., Bradley, J., and Liang, H. (2011). Team climate, empowering leadership

and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 299-312.

Yaakub, K., Shaari, R., Panatik, S. A., and Rahman, A. (2013). Towards and

understanding of the effect of core self-evaluations and knowledge sharing

behaviour. International Journal of Applied Psychology, 3(1), 13-18.

Yang, C., and Chen, L.C. (2009). On using organizational knowledge capabilities to

assist organizational learning. Knowledge Management and Organizational

Learning, 4(5), 302-318.

Yang, T. M., and Maxwell, T. A. (2011). Information-sharing in public

organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and

inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2),

164-175.

Yazici, H. J. (2009). The role of project management maturity and organizational

culture in perceived performance. Project Management Journal, 40(3), 14-33.

Yeşil, S., and Dereli, S. F. (2013). An empirical investigation of the organizational

justice, knowledge sharing and innovation capability. Procedia -Social and

Behavioural Sciences, 75, 199-208.

203

153

15

3

Yi, J. (2009). A measure of knowledge sharing behaviour: scale development and

validation. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 7(1), 65-81.

Yu, T., and Wu, N. (2009). A review of study on the competing values framework.

International Journal of Business and Management, 7, 37-42.

Yusof, M.S.M. (2005). The public service as a learning organisations. The Malaysian

experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(3), 463-474.

Yusof, N. I., Masrek, M. N., and Noordin, S. A. (2012). Determinants of Knowledge

Productivity among Administrative and Diplomatic Officers: An Exploratory

Study. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(9), 9675-9686.

Yusof, Z.M., and Ismail, M.B., (2009). Is there a relationship between knowledge

sharing practice and the quality of service delivery: A case study in three

government agencies in Malaysia. Journal of Knowledge Management

Practice, 10(1).

Yusof, Z.M., Ismail, M.B., Ahmad, K., and Yusof, M.M. (2012). Knowledge sharing

in the public sector in Malaysia: A proposed holistic model. Information

Development, 28(1), 43-54.

Zabid, A. (1987). The Nature of Managerial Work Roles in Malaysian Public

Enterprises. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 5(1), 16-27.

Zain, Z.M., Ishak, R., and Ghani, E.K. (2009). The influence of corporate culture on

organizational commitment: A study on a Malaysian listed company. European

Journal of Economics, Finance, and Administrative Sciences, 17, 16-26.

Zazzali, J.L., Alexander, J.A., Shortell, S.M., and Burns, L.R. (2007). Organizational

culture and physician satisfaction with dimensions of group practice. Health

Services Research, 42(3), 1150-1176

Zhang, P., and Ng, F.F. (2012). Analysis of knowledge sharing behaviour in

construction teams in Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics,

30(7), 557-574.

Zikmund, W. G., Barry J Babin, Jon C Carr and Mitch Griffin (2009). Business

Research Methods. South Western Educational Publishing.

Documents

MANAGERIAL ROLES ON KNOWLEDGE SHARING …eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/77946/1/SunitaRegaKathiraveluPFM2016.pdf · demonstrate their managerial roles to cultivate knowledge ... ke arah